Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SHACKLED PRISONERS OF WAR

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the shackling of British prisoners of war in German camps?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): On 11th February last I told the House that a communication had been sent on that day to the Swiss Government, with the request that the views of His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and in Canada on the question of shackling set out therein should be conveyed to the German Government. The reply of the German Government has recently been communicated to me, through the same channel, and I think that hon. Members, who have been very patient upon this distressing matter, should know the present position.
The Geneva Convention lays down generally that prisoners of war must be humanely treated, and the point at issue between His Majesty's Governments and the German Government is what constitutes such treatment. The Geneva Convention does not attempt to define humane treatment, and lays down no rule about the shackling or binding of prisoners during operations. The German Government assert that they will renounce the measures taken against our prisoners only on receipt of an assurance that instructions have been issued to our Forces forbidding the binding and shackling of German prisoners in any circumstances whatsoever. We informed the Swiss Government, in the communication sent on 11th February, and they in turn informed the German Government, that instructions had been issued to our Armed Forces to ensure that all ranks should be acquainted with, and observe, the terms of the Geneva Convention, and that, in

those instructions, it has been made clear that a general order to bind prisoners is illegal and that the issue of any such order is strictly forbidden. The instructions, however, went on to say that circumstances may arise in which the binding of prisoners may be necessary, and may, indeed, be in the best interest of the prisoner himself. It is the duty of a prisoner during operations to try to escape and to impede his captors, who must, of course, prevent such action. In such circumstances, binding, which must be carried out in a humane manner, is permissible, always provided that it is discontinued as soon as immediate operational necessity allows. These views were duly communicated by the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs to the German Government, who have now replied that our prohibition in principle of shackling is made illusory by the above reservation of circumstances, and they therefore insist on compliance with their earlier demand.
His Majesty's Governments have continued, and will continue, scrupulously to observe not only the terms but also the spirit of the Geneva Convention, Article 2 of which lays down that prisoners of war shall "at all times be humanely treated and protected." I should perhaps add that that article of the Convention, of which Germany was a signatory, also provides that "measures of reprisal against them are forbidden." May I, in this connection, remind the House that, on 7th December last, the Swiss Government suggested both to the German Government and to the Governments of the United Kingdom and Canada that, "without prejudice to the matters in dispute" and in order to "terminate a state of things manifestly contrary to the principles of humanity," all prisoners in their hands should be freed from their shackles at an agreed hour on 15th December. The House will recall that, as evidence of their desire to respond fully and promptly to the spirit of the Swiss proposal, the Governments of Canada and the United Kingdom gave orders that German prisoners in their hands, who had been shackled, should be freed from their bonds on 12th December. The German Government continued, however, to shackle our men.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are considering, in consultation with Dominion Governments, the terms of the reply to be made, for the information


of the German Government, to the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs, to whose skilful and patient handling of this matter I take this opportunity to pay public tribute. His Majesty's Government will, of course, continue to press for the abandonment by the German Government of the shackling now in effect.

Sir A. Knox: Does the right hon. Gentleman's information lead him to believe that there has been any relaxation of this punishment of shackling in the camps of Germany, or not?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir; information has come to me that the method of application of this shackling has been less rigorous of late. I very much hope that we shall obtain confirmation of that.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether this shackling is confined to Prison Camp VIIIB or whether it is general in prison camps all over Germany?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that "general" is the right word. I think it is done in VIIIB and one or two others.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will meet with the general approval of the British public?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE WITH ITALY)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any negotiations now proceeding through the Red Cross officers with a view to another exchange of prisoners of war, he will put forward the name of Rifleman Clauson, No. 6845863, now a prisoner of war in Italy?

Mr. Eden: Negotiations with the Italian Government for the reciprocal repatriation of prisoners of war who are seriously ill or wounded are conducted through the Protecting Power, and not through the Red Cross. I do not know whether Rifleman Clauson has already, as provided by Article 70 of the Geneva Convention of 1929, either been selected by the medical officer of his camp for examination by the Mixed Medical Commission, or has himself made a direct request for examination,

or has been presented for examination by his camp leader, either on the latter's own initiative or at the prisoner's request. If not, and if the hon. Member will be good enough to give me particulars of the serious injury or illness which in his opinion would justify examination with a view to repatriation, I will be ready to consider whether His Majesty's Government can nominate Rifleman Clauson for examination by the Commission.

Mr. Thorne: May I think the right hon. Gentleman for that reply? The reason I put down this Question was that the man in question has been a prisoner of war from the very earliest stages.

Mr. Eden: That alone would not be sufficient.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (BERMUDA CONFERENCE)

Wing-Commander James: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an invitation has been extended to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to be represented at the projected conference on refugees; and whether this invitation has been accepted?

Mr. Eden: The conversations at Bermuda on the refugee problem are between representatives of His Majesty's Government and of the United States Government only, and are of an informal and exploratory character. The answer, therefore, to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and the second part consequently does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, although it is the declared intention of His Majesty's Government to dispossess the German Government of all the loot acquired during the war, it will not be practicable to restore it in every case to its rightful owners; and whether he will therefore issue a warning to the inhabitants of all occupied countries that they must not count on the restoration of property seized by, or handed over to, the Germans, when victory has been achieved by the United Nations?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government joined with the other Allied Governments principally concerned in making a solemn declaration on 5th January, 1943, in which they announced their intention to do their utmost to defeat the methods of dispossession practised by the enemy Governments in the occupied countries, and to reserve all their rights to declare invalid all transfers or dealings whatsoever in the occupied territories. The wording of the Declaration makes it clear that the Allied Governments are fully alive to the practical difficulties of restitution, but will, I hope, be taken as an earnest of their intention to do everything possible to effect it. I do not think that any statement such as my hon. Friend has in mind is, therefore, necessary.

Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the recent pronouncement by the Lord Chancellor in another place might give the impression to the inhabitants of occupied countries that they could hand over their property to the Germans with impunity, counting with certainty on getting it back after the war; and is it not desirable to issue a warning to these people that they cannot count on getting their property back after the war?

Mr. Eden: We shall do our best to get it back for them. That, I think, is the light answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH REPUBLICAN REFUGEES (TRANSFER TO SOUTH AMERICA)

Mr. Woods: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether satisfactory arrangements have been made for the transport to the South American countries willing to receive them of the Spanish Republicans and other anti-Fascists who have been, or are to be, released from internment in North Africa; and the number who have already been transferred to South America?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the Mexican Government have agreed to admit all Spanish Republican refugees in North Africa desirous of proceeding to Mexico. The necessary arrangements for the transport of these refugees are now being made as rapidly as possible, but there have not yet been any actual departures for Mexico.

Mr. Woods: Have all the men who were imprisoned or interned purely for anti-Fascist activities now been released, and will they be able, therefore, to take advantage of what facilities there are for transferring to South America?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. This applies to Spanish Republican refugees. I understand that there are others.

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA AND THE LEBANON (CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement regarding constitutional development in Syria and the Lebanon?

Mr. Eden: I am glad to say that satisfactory progress has recently been made in restoring free and constitutional government in these countries. On 24th January, the French National Committee published a communiqué expressing their intention to give effect to the independence of Syria and the Lebanon proclaimed by General Catroux in 1941, and stating that, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, they had come to the conclusion that the military situation now permitted the restoration of the constitutional régime. They, therefore, authorised General Catroux to take the necessary measures on his return to the Levant. On 18th March, General Catroux issued decrees appointing a Provisional Government in the Lebanon to hold elections, after which the new Chamber of Deputies would proceed to the election of a President of the Republic. The re-establishment of the Constitution would take effect from the day of the President's election. Similar measures for the restoration of the constitutional régime in Syria were announced by General Catroux on 25th March.

Mr. Astor: When will the elections take place?

Mr. Eden: I am not sure that I can give the exact date. It will be soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AIMS

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official intimation that Spain is ready to use her good offices to restore world peace; and whether, in


view of General Jordana's recent speech in Barcelona, he will reassert that the objective of the United Nations is the unconditional surrender of their enemies?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the question is "No, Sir." As regards General Jordana's recent speech at Barcelona, the hon. Member will no doubt have seen that Mr. Cordell Hull stated on 16th April that he could only repeat what President Roosevelt and other leaders of the United Nations had said, namely, that they were determined on the unconditional surrender of the Axis and its satellites. I am glad to have this opportunity to state that this is also the view of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Personnel (Documents)

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many airmen are without documents and have been so for one month, three months, six months and 12 months, respectively?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): No airman is without documents. A record of every man's service is maintained by the R.A.F. Record Office throughout his career in the Royal Air Force. As for the administration of those documents which are required to be held by a man's unit, I have been aware of difficulties arising from the complexities of posting, particularly overseas, the loss of documents by enemy action and the dilution of experienced staff. For some time past strenuous efforts have been made to overcome these difficulties and improvement in procedure has resulted; but I am not satisfied with the present position, and further measures are being taken.

Mr. Bellenger: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these documents include medical history sheets?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

Members' Constituents (Representations)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Air on what grounds he has decided not to consider representations by Members of Parliament in respect of their constituents serving in the Royal Air Force unless those representations are

supported by a magistrate or a minister of religion personally acquainted with the airman concerned?

Sir A. Sinclair: Presumably my hon. Friend has in mind a recent case in which one of his constituents serving in the Royal Air Force applied to him for a statement to support an official application made on compassionate grounds, for posting to a Station near his home. Application of this kind must in the first place be submitted by an airman to his commanding officer, supported by a corroborative statement from a person of standing, such as a Member of Parliament, a minister of religion or a justice of the peace. Representations made direct to my Department by an hon. Member on behalf of an airmail for whom he cannot himself provide a corroborative statement of this kind would, of course, be carefully considered in conjunction with an application from the airman concerned submitted through the recognised official channels.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand from that answer that, when a Member of Parliament writes to the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, the Department does not take action without further representation?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. We answer the Member's letter and suggest to him the way to take action.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the War Office at once bring the machinery they have into action and make replies at once instead of imposing, as in this case, 10 days of unnecessary delay?

Sir A. Sinclair: Really the quickest way is for a man to apply to his commanding officer.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this imposes a severe limitation upon men who do not know a justice of the peace and, in many cases, do not know intimately a minister of religion who could vouch for them? Will he take steps, if this has to be done, to see that the basis is made much broader, say, to include the secretary of a friendly society or a good neighbour who might be able to speak for the man?

Sir A. Sinclair: I will gladly look into that point and will consider very carefully whether the list could be extended.

Wing-Commander James: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that Members of Parliament are protected by the usual channels being used, otherwise an avalanche will descend upon them?

Sir A. Sinclair: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Cocks: Cannot these representations be made through the welfare officer of the R.A.F?

Sir A. Sinclair: It would be very much quicker to do that through the commanding officer.

Educational Service Officers

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the use of the term "commission," as applied to the personnel of the Royal Air Force Educational Service, is rather misleading, as these officers have to serve under civilian conditions, and do not enjoy the status and privileges of other officers; and whether he will consider extending such privileges to the members of this service?

Sir A. Sinclair: The Royal Air Force Educational Service was, before the war, a civilian organisation. Its members now serve as unmobilised officers of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve which enables them to wear uniform. It is convenient, for reasons of discipline, that they should do so. Their duties are, however, substantially of the same nature as in peacetime and they therefore continue to receive pay on the provincial Burnham Scale for secondary school teachers together with a special allowance to meet extra expenditure which they may incur owing to their service with the Royal Air Force. No change in these arrangements is contemplated.

Mr. Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is in accordance with the letters of invitation sent to the men before they joined, or has there been an alteration since?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; I understand that pay conditions ate entirely in accordance with the conditions of service before the war and many have joined since the war on these conditions. So far from there being discontent with present conditions I understand there is no difficulty at all in filling vacancies.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is it not a new status in the history of the world that in wartime a man should be invited or compelled to be an officer and yet not be a mobilised officer; and are not these officers, officers for the purpose of receiving orders and officers for no purpose of giving orders?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do not think that that is true. This arrangement is working very well. The educational service is working well and there is no difficulty in obtaining candidates for vacancies.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is it not an entirely new status?

Sir John Mellor: Is it not the fact——

Mr. Speaker: We must get on with Questions.

Air-Sea Rescue Service Badge

Mr. Frankel: asked the Secretary of State for Air the reason why officers in the Special Duties Branch or in the Auxiliary and Special Duties Branch, who are masters of the Air-Sea Rescue launches and pinnaces which patrol the English Channel and elsewhere and pick up casualties and who are permanently employed in Air-Sea Rescue Service, are not entitled to wear the distinguishing badge supplied to the crews of the launches and pinnaces?

Sir A. Sinclair: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his Question on 17th March.

Mr. Frankel: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that these people really are operational and not temporary as indicated in the previous reply?

Sir A. Sinclair: They are operational. I did not say that they are not operational but they may be transferred from one unit of the Service to another. The hon. Member suggests in his Question that they are permanently employed; they are not permanently employed in Air-Sea Rescue but may at any time be transferred.

Mr. Frankel: Does the right hon. Gentleman then deny that these so-called temporary people have been occupied for years doing this work?

Sir A. Sinclair: Some, certainly, but there is no permanence in the arrangement.

Mr. Frankel: Is there permanence in any arrangement?

Sir A. Sinclair: They are general duties officers in the R.A.F.

Mr. Frankel: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Officers' Uniforms (Prices)

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the stores branch of the Royal Air Force have bought any ready-to-wear greatcoats to sell to officers under the Priority A Scheme which was introduced in May, 1941; and what is the approximate difference in price as compared with the Priority A prices in the Board of Trade Order No. 2556?

Sir A. Sinclair: Some factory-made greatcoats have been purchased by my Department for sale to officers serving in certain Commands overseas where other sources of supply are not available. Their wholesale price is approximately 55 per cent. of the maximum price for greatcoats made of priority A cloth fixed by the Board of Trade Order No. 2556. This Order is, however, concerned with retail prices for bespoke tailoring.

Mr. Walkden: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, can he say why these young officers in this country should not have supplies of greatcoats made available to them without having to go to a middleman and pay about 40 or 50 per cent. more than the greatcoats actually cost from the wholesaler? Why cannot they get them from the quartermaster's stores?

Sir A. Sinclair: That is a question which, as I conveyed in the concluding sentence of my answer, is under consideration; but my hon. Friend will understand that it affects all three Service Departments.

Mr. Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has been informed of the conviction of a tailor for selling to a Royal Air Force officer a ready-to-wear uniform bought from a wholesaler at £5 12s. 6d., plus Purchase Tax of 19s. 5d., for £10 12s. 6d. and failing to charge separately for the cost of certain alterations making a total of

£12 1s. 6d.; and whether he will consider allowing Royal Air Force stores to buy in bulk from wholesalers uniforms which can be sold direct to officers at net cost plus a small percentage for administrative charges?

Sir A. Sinclair: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The suggestion in the second part is already under consideration.

Aircraft, South-West Pacific

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the declaration of Mr. Curtin and General MacArthur calling for a greater supply of military aircraft for the South-West Pacific theatre of war, he has a statement to make on this matter?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. It would not be in the public interest to make a statement on this matter at the present time.

Mr. Granville: In view of the recent statements in the U.S.A. and this country about record aircraft production, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a holding war requires aircraft reinforcements and that we have some responsibility?

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot add to the answer I have given.

Anti-Gas Measures

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the possibility of poison gas being used against this country by the enemy, he can give an assurance that all branches of the Royal Air Force have fully-trained anti-gas personnel; and whether he has confidence in their ability to carry out anti-gas measures efficiently in the event of such attacks?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

Officers' Allowances

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has been reached regarding the allowances paid to officers required to live in mess for operational purposes?

Sir A. Sinclair: As the question of officers' allowances is a complicated one, the reply must necessarily be somewhat lengthy, and I propose, with the hon.


Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

A married officer who resides with his family is paid allowances known as lodging, fuel, light and furniture allowances which are intended to cover the cost of providing furnished accommodation for himself and his family. If, however, on account of the exigencies of the Service (which term covers the requirements of operations) he is required to live in mess he receives, instead of the allowances referred to above, a consolidated allowance which, except for officers in the lower ranks, is less than the total of the other allowances; at the same time the officer himself is provided with furnished accommodation and services in the mess. The full allowances in respect of the family, may, however, be continued for a period not exceeding 91 days after separation if during that period the family remain in the same accommodation as they occupied before the separation.

Formerly the consolidated allowance was lower for all ranks than the total of the lodging, fuel, light and furniture allowances, but in view of representations received to the effect that the reduction in allowances on separation bore hardly on the officers concerned, particularly on those in the junior ranks, the consolidated allowances for the junior ranks were revised with effect from 1st October, 1942. The effect of the revision was to make the consolidated allowances for flying officers and pilot officers equal to the aggregate of the allowances payable to non-separated officers of those ranks. As from the same date the difference between consolidated allowance and the aggregate of the other allowances in the ranks of flight lieutenant and squadron leader was reduced to 1s. 5d. and 1s. 6d. a day respectively.

The above information relates to officers commissioned before 1st January, 1942. For all officers commissioned on or after that date the difference between the non-separated and the separated rate of allowance is 1s. a day. The question whether, for officers required to live in mess for operational purposes, any further revision of allowances is called for has been very carefully considered but the decision reached, for the time being, is that no further change should be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION (CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air what remuneration has been paid to the chief executive member of British Overseas Airways Corporation?

Sir A. Sinclair: The chief executive member of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, who recently resigned, received no remuneration as a member of the Corporation. I am not in a position to say what his remuneration was as chief executive as this was a matter for the Corporation to determine in accordance with the provisions of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939.

Mr. Bellenger: Is not the Minister entitled to know the salaries of the officers of British Overseas Airways Corporation and other information connected with it?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I have told the House before that management was to be left to the Corporation, and payment of the staff is essentially a matter for the management.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he will consider arranging for the exchanging of information of a technical character in the design, development and research of post-war civil aircraft between the United Nations, in the same way that inventions and ideas are exchanged in the field of military aircraft for joint war production?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): I will certainly bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind the generalisation in his recent speeches referring to international co-operation—that it cannot be achieved unless the foundations are laid now, and that the way to this is contained in the Question?

Sir S. Cripps: I will also bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Invitations to Broadcast (Ministers and Members)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Information whether it is the practice of


his Ministry to confirm or veto invitations to broadcast issued by the British Broadcasting Corporation to Ministers or other Members of Parliament?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): proceeded to read the answer to a subsequent Question.

Hon. Members: That is the wrong answer.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of Order. I did say "No. 21." I will postpone Question No. 21 if the right hon. Gentleman has not the answer with him.

Mr. Bracken: I have the answer, but there has been a muddle. If the House will allow me, I will answer Questions 22 and 23 together if the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) will postpone Question No. 21.

Mr. Driberg: I will postpone Question 21, but I do not think Questions 22 and 23 can be answered together.

Mr. Bracken: Very well.

Broadcasts (Ministerial Participation)

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation with reference to the employment of members of the Government as participants in such entertainment and educational features as the Brains Trust?

Mr. Bracken: Use of the broadcast for Ministerial utterances is arranged between the Prime Minister and his colleagues. In practice the Prime Minister is consulted in all cases of political importance. Entertainment features stand in a different category, but it is unlikely that Ministerial participation in the Brains Trust discussions will be resumed.

Mr. Mander: While I appreciate the valuable contributions made by those Ministers who have done this work, is the Minister aware that there is a strong body of opinion which feels that it is inconsistent with the position of Ministers to participate in engagements of this kind? Will he give consideration to the question of dropping the practice?

Mr. Bracken: I have said it is unlikely that Ministerial participation in the Brains Trust discussions will be resumed.

Service Departments (Public Relations)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Information whether he has considered the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure on Public Relations Branches of Service Departments; and whether it is proposed to give effect to any of the Committee's recommendations, in particular, those numbered 1, 2 and 9 in the summary?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. I have read this Report. The public relations officers of the Service Departments are appointed by and responsible to their own Ministers, and I do not control their activities. With regard to recommendation (9) of the Select Committee's Report, I am in favour of this proposal and will discuss it with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education.

Mr. Driberg: Whatever streamlining of these services may be considered desirable, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of the best news stories of this war have been produced by ordinary civilian journalists who have been given facilities by the Service Departments? Will he impress upon his colleagues the necessity of spreading these facilities as widely as possible?

Mr. Bracken: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the work of civilian journalists, and I do not think any of my colleagues doubt the validity of the point he has just put to me.

Continental Press

Captain Cobb: asked the Minister of Information whether there are available to officials a regular analysis and synopsis of the Continental Press; and, if so, whether they can be made regularly and easily available to Members and to journalists?

Mr. Bracken: Digests of the Continental Press are made available to newspapers so far as economy permits. I will gladly arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange with the British Broadcasting Corporation for a weekly broadcast on the Home Service designed to keep our public informed about movements of public opinion in the Continental Press?

Mr. Bracken: Quotations from the Continental Press are from time to time included in B.B.C. bulletins, but I doubt whether a special weekly feature could be justified. There are already a great many calls on the time at the B.B.C.'s disposal, and the Corporation has not the staff necessary to undertake the vast additional task of summarising the Continental Press.

Captain Cobb: asked the Minister of Information whether he will issue as a White Paper extracts from the most striking and characteristic articles in the Swedish and Turkish Press of the last four months?

Mr. Bracken: I regret I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. There are 130 daily papers in Sweden and 113 papers in Turkey. Therefore, even if one considered Press extracts to be suitable material for a White Paper, I should hestitate to have such a bulky document compiled as my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

Overseas Broadcasts

Captain Cobb: asked the Minister of Information whether he will endeavour to facilitate the following by Members of the main lines of our overseas broadcasts by regularly placing in the Library samples, synopses and directives?

Mr. Bracken: During every month the B.B.C. transmit thousands of overseas broadcasts. If they were to attempt the labour of selecting samples or making synopses of these broadcasts they would have to make considerable additions to their staff. May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that Members of this House have often suggested to me that the staff of the B.B.C. should be reduced? And so if I were to attempt to make the increase suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend I doubt if I should obtain the approval of the House.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Information whether, before authorising the repeated exposition of the Beveridge Report on overseas broadcast programmes, he considered the risk of giving the impression of excessive preoccupation with our own standards of comfort and also the disadvantage to our cause of any risk we should be thought more interested in social reform than in questions of strategy and frontiers?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. But as continual publicity was given at the same

time to the strategic results of the Allied landings in North Africa and to General Montgomery's triumphal progress along the shores of Libya, the hypothetical risks which my hon. Friend has in mind did not arise.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the questioner in favour of discussing the second front instead of the Beveridge Report?

Mr. Driberg: Is it not misleading to suggest that a minimum standard of subsistence is equivalent to a standard of comfort?

Mr. Bracken: It is not for me to umpire between two hon. Gentlemen.

British Information Services, United States

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Minister of Information the total number of the personnel of the British Information Service in America?

Mr. Bracken: The total staff of the British Information Services in America numbers 357, of which 91 are administrative or technical officers. The remaining staff is made up of Press clippers, junior assistants, clerks, typists, messengers, office boys, etc.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Minister of Information how many of the personnel of the British Information Service in America have been editors of national daily papers?

Mr. Bracken: I assume that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentions national daily papers he means papers which circulate in every part of a country on the same day. As there are no such newspapers in the United States, the British Information Services do not stand in need of what he calls editors of national daily papers, and possess none.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I thought it would be quite obvious that I was referring to national papers in this country.

Mr. Bracken: I did not gather that from the Question, but in any case I do not think it matters very much to the answer. It still stands.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Minister of Information why the British Information Service in the United States of America did not have the text of the Home Secretary's speech of 3rd April


on post-war planning until several days after that speech had been made?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. and gallant Member may recall that the Home Secretary made three important speeches on post-war affairs. He supplied the M.O.I. with advance copies of these speeches which were transmitted to the United States. My right hon. Friend did not supply the Ministry with a copy of the speech which he made in Yorkshire and which dealt with the future of the Labour Party. Doubtless the Home Secretary felt that a speech dealing with a matter of party politics should not be transmitted abroad at the expense of the taxpayers.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is the Minister aware that the criticism in my Question was made by Mr. Raymond Gram Swing in a cabled article to the "Sunday Express" last Sunday, entitled "Tell America more about the British," and does he adhere to his recent statement that Mr. Raymond Gram Swing considers our information services to be "just right"?

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that in future any speech by any Minister, including a Labour Minister, on the future of the Labour Party will be submitted to the Labour Party?

Mr. Bracken: It would be regarded as a great act of impudence if I interfered in the domestic affairs of the Labour Party.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what I have said the next time he makes one of his restrained, statesmanlike speeches?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (LIGHTING)

Mr. Denman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware of the ill-effects of the exclusion of daylight from this Chamber; and whether he will provide it, until the Summer Recess, with some glass or glass-substitute windows?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 17th February to the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit). As I have explained in this

and previous replies on this subject, absorbent tiles have been fixed in the windows, on the recommendation of the National Physical Laboratory, for the specific purpose of improving the acoustics on the Floor of the Chamber and their replacement by glass or glass substitute would most seriously affect acoustical conditions in the Chamber.

Sir Alfred Beit: Could not absorbent tiles be fixed somewhere else than in the windows?

Mr. Hicks: That matter was very extensively considered by the National Physical Laboratory. It was not considered possible to fix them in any other place in the Chamber, and that is the reason they were put in the windows.

Mr. Denman: If hon. Members would speak up, could we not have some windows facing West fitted with glass, rather than dwell in this constant gloom?

Mr. Hicks: It is very difficult, in an answer to a Question, to deal with the examination of the acoustics of the Chamber and the problem of making every hon. Member audible. The putting in of another ceiling was considered to be the only effective way of giving the Chamber the acoustic properties we would have liked, but that was a physical impossibility, and the fitting of absorbent tiles into the windows was the next best thing. This has contributed towards improving the acoustics. Unfortunately, not everybody speaks as clearly and as plainly as the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Anti-U-Boat Warfare

Mr. Stokes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the contradictory statements made in this country and the United States of America on the progress of anti-U-boat warfare, he will take steps to see that the statements are co-ordinated in the future?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on 10th February, we keep in touch with the American authorities with regard to policy in relation to statements about anti-U-boat warfare. There are, however, obvious difficulties of a practical nature in the way of complete uniformity from day to day.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 25th March the Prime Minister made in the House a reassuring statement on the subject of the sinkings in March, whereas only a few days later Colonel Knox, in America, said that March was much worse than February, and that the position was very serious? How does my right hon. Friend reconcile those two statements?

Mr. Alexander: There was no real difference between the statement of the Prime Minister and that of Colonel Knox.

Mr. Stokes: Well, you do not know the meaning of words.

Pack Drill

Mr. Cluse: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that pack drill is not allowed in the Navy, he will make it known to all commanding officers of shore establishments and ships at present using this form of punishment that it must cease?

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that naval ratings undergoing No. 11 punishment are compelled to drill at the double for long periods with a rifle and a pack containing 60 pounds of sand; and will he take steps to abolish this method of dealing with men who, in most cases, have committed a minor offence?

Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising this matter. The answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Edwards) on Wednesday, 7th April, was correct according to what we believed was the universal practice under the regulations. It has since come to notice that in a few cases drill in full marching order has been carried out and that there have been occasions on which sand has been substituted for Service equipment in the knapsack. In the opinion of the Board of Admiralty this is thoroughly undesirable, and when we learnt of it orders were immediately given that it should cease forthwith. In future any drill of this kind will only be carried out in drill order which, for Naval ratings, is web belt, side arms, gaiters and rifle.

Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction his reply will give to the men in the Navy; and will he look into the position of the officers

who have been concerned in the matter of this unnecessary punishment with a view to having them transferred to other posts?

Mr. Alexander: Of course, full inquiries have been made in each case. I would not like to give an undertaking of the sort which my hon. Friend desires, but I can say that there may be cases where there has been a genuine misinterpretation of the Regulation, and I hope that any misunderstanding will now be completely removed.

Officers' Pay

Commander Galbraith: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers of lieutenant-commander rank and above have received any increase in their basic rate of pay since the commencement of the war; and, if not, the date on which their pay was fixed at the present level?

Mr. Alexander: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. For lieutenant-commanders, commanders and captains, the present rates of pay were fixed in 1938, when additional increments at nine and twelve years' seniority for lieutenant-commanders and at twelve years' seniority for commanders were introduced. For higher ranks the rates were fixed in 1934.

Commander Galbraith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the pay of these officers was stabilised there has been a very large increase in the cost of living, and does he not consider that the time has come when the whole situation should be reviewed?

Mr. Alexander: There have been certain adjustments; for example, in the case of the marriage allowance; but the question of dealing with officers of this rank and upwards is one that is not confined to the Navy, but one which would have to be dealt with in common with the other Services.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the method by which the marriage allowance was introduced did in fact cause a 2s. a day reduction in the pay of the officers in question?

Mr. Alexander: The marriage allowance is not subject to taxation and that, of course, in these days of high taxation, means some advantage to the officers.

Commander Galbraith: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to discuss this matter with the other Services?

Mr. Alexander: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Food Shortage (Commission of Inquiry)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the terms of reference of the Commission which has been set up to inquire into the causes which have led to serious food shortage in Kenya; and whether special attention will be paid to the situation in native areas?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The terms of reference of the Commission are:—
To inquire into the present food shortage with a view to ascertaining and reporting on the causes thereof, and to make recommendations to prevent recurrence.
To inquire into the system of control of maize, which has been in operation since 1st July, 1942, and to report whether it has been administered efficiently and in the best interests of the country.
I have no doubt that in connection with any recommendations which the Commission may make to prevent a recurrence of the food shortage full attention will be paid both to consumption needs and production potentialities of native areas.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Commission take evidence on the spot?

Colonel Stanley: I presume so. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Commission was set up by the Governor of Kenya.

Mr. Sorensen: May we assume that meanwhile energetic action is being taken to meet the grave food shortage that exists?

Colonel Stanley: Most energetic action has been taken, and I would like to express thanks to my colleagues the Minister of Food and the Minister of War Transport for all they have done in this matter.

Legislative Bodies (Natives)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether further consideration has been given to the question of African representation in the legislative bodies of Kenya?

Colonel Stanley: A recent departure in the policy of associating Africans more closely with the central Government in Kenya has been the establishment of a Standing Advisory Committee on Local Native Councils on which Africans are in the majority. The two European members of the Legislative Council who represent African interests are members of this Committee; and in order that they may be in close touch with local Native Councils in the Provinces, are also invited to attend the half-yearly meetings of delegates from Local Native Councils, which are now a regular feature in the Nyanza and Central Provinces.

Mr. Creech Jones: Cannot something be done to give greater African representation, direct or indirect, on the legislative bodies themselves?

Colonel Stanley: This is an advance, and I should like to see how it works first.

Mr. Riley: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider it highly desirable that the Africans themselves should be appointed or elected to represent native interests on the Legislative Councils, and is he taking steps to have Africans so elected?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

People's National Party

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the unconditional release of the four detained trade unionists in Jamaica, he will now consider removing restrictions as to political activities which have been placed on certain other members of the People's National Party?

Colonel Stanley: The Governor of Jamaica has reported that he revoked the restriction orders against these men on 22nd March.

Mr. Adams: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give a hint in that direction that this interference with the legal political activities of these people should cease?

Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, most certainly not. I said to the House that I thought the Governor's action was justified at the time. The circumstances have now changed, and rightly he has decided to take off these restrictions.

Kerosene Supplies

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the acute shortage of kerosene for domestic lighting in Jamaica; that kerosene is the only means of artificial lighting for great sections of the people in Jamaica; that in many of the poorer districts the people have been without any kerosene for many months; and can be make a statement as to the supply, distribution and price of kerosene in the rural areas of Jamaica?

Colonel Stanley: I am aware of the hardships which have been caused by the reduction of supplies of kerosene to Jamaica. A similar reduction has been imposed upon all the Caribbean territories on account of shipping difficulties. I have no information as to the supply, distribution and price of kerosene in the rural areas of Jamaica, but I am asking the Governor to furnish me with a report.

Mr. Riley: Have the local Government taken any steps to ration the supply of kerosene?

Colonel Stanley: I know that they have been taking steps, and it is that I am trying to find out from them.

Banana and Coconut Workers (Wages)

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long the strike of banana and coconut estate workers in the parish of St. Thomas, Jamaica, which began towards the end of January, continued; and whether the demands of the workers for an increase in wages, based on the cost of living index, have been granted?

Colonel Stanley: The Governor has reported that the strike on banana and coconut plantations in St. Thomas was settled after a seven weeks' stoppage by a Government board of inquiry which succeeded in securing an agreement between the Farmers' Association and the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union resulting in most cases in wages increases.

Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that the sugar workers have received an advance, could not these people have had the same?

Colonel Stanley: They have in most cases got increases.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

War Contributions and Loans

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Colonial Empire has made financial contributions towards the prosecution of the war; and whether these sums have been subscribed with the willing assent of the peoples concerned?

Colonel Stanley: Apart from the contributions made by some Colonial Governments towards the cost of their local military forces, the contributions from the Colonial Empire towards the prosecution of the war now total over £23,000,000. In addition loans have been made to His Majesty's Government free of interest by Colonial Governments and private individuals totalling nearly £8,000,000. Colonial Governments are also paying interest on further loans raised locally by public subscriptions, the proceeds of which have also been lent to His Majesty's Government free of interest. In all cases the sums have been subscribed with the willing assent of the peoples concerned.

Mr. Sorensen: Will those sums be taken into consideration when any funds are allocated to the Colonies under the Colonial Welfare Development Act?

Colonel Stanley: I do not quite see what the hon. Member means.

Service Volunteers

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House as to the approximate number of volunteers to the British Armed Forces which have been provided by the Colonial Empire; and in what theatres of war they are serving?

Colonel Stanley: The hon. and gallant Member will of course appreciate that for security reasons it is not possible to give figures, but I can assure him that the total is a most impressive one. Personnel from the Colonial Empire are serving on every front.

Sir T. Moore: Do not these two replies show the loyalty and affection of Colonial people as a whole for the British people?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Jewish Children from Bulgaria (Transport)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has anything to report concerning the progress made in transporting the 4,000 children and 500 accompanying adults from Bulgaria, for whom admission to Palestine was promised on 3rd February?

Colonel Stanley: Progress has been impeded by formidable obstacles in the way of the provision of the necessary transport. I am glad to say, however, that there is now some prospect of an early solution of certain of these difficulties.

Miss Rathbone: Seeing that it is three months since the transfer of these children was promised, cannot the matter be speeded up, as the situation in Bulgaria is deteriorating? Have any of these children actually started?

Colonel Stanley: Certainly none have arrived. The hon. Lady will appreciate the difficulties. We realise the necessity for great urgency, but the House will realise that a great part of these matters lies entirely outside the control of the Government and depends on difficult negotiations with other parties.

Crusader Castle, Athlit (Repair)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received an answer from the Palestine Government regarding the proposal to repair the Crusader castle of Athlit with labour from the neighbouring internment camps?

Colonel Stanley: I have received a reply from the Palestine Government regarding my hon. Friend's suggestion. I understand that there are at present no internees in Athlit Camp. Moreover, even if internee labour were available, repairs to the castle at Athlit would be a highly technical operation which could only be undertaken under the personal supervision of an architect with special experience of the restoration of ancient monuments. No such expert is available in Palestine. Consideration will, however, be given to the employment on some other suitable work of any person who may, in future, be detained in the camp.

Mr. Astor: Is it a fact that the French Government in Syria and the British Government in Cyprus, and even the Italians at Rome, have done wonderful work in restoring Crusader castles? Is it not a reflection on the Palestine Government that every Crusader castle in our territory has been left entirely derelict?

Colonel Stanley: I should like to see all the work done that is possible, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it would be a bad thing to intern people in order that they should work on these castles.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL OUTPUT (PRIME MINISTER'S APPEAL)

Mr. Salt: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of stimulating still further the production of coal, he will investigate the possibility of now making available to the country the text of his speech to the miners' delegation last year, or, alternatively, whether he can arrange for another appeal to be broadcast or made publicly on those lines?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir, the text of the speeches made on that occasion will now be made available for publication. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I will bear his suggestion in mind, but such conferences would lose their value if held frequently.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the condition of the mines, owing to the strain and stress of constant working, has had this effect? It is not because the men are not doing their best.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE JUBILEE (NAMES OF PIONEERS)

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that in several talks on the British Broadcasting Corporation and articles in the Press in connection with the 25th anniversary of the formation of the Royal Air Force, the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Nottingham (Major-General Sir F. Sykes) was omitted, he can, in the interests of historic truth, give the


names, with dates, of appointments of the principal officers concerned in creating the Royal Flying Corps, the Royal Naval Air Service and those who were chiefs of staff in building up the Royal Air Force when the two services were amalgamated in 1918?

The Prime Minister: The names and appointments of the officers associated with the creation of the Services referred to have already been published in full detail in the Official History of the War, and further publication at this stage in the OFFICIAL REPORT would hardly be warranted. None of the broadcasts or articles connected with the R.A.F. Jubilee purported to give the names of all these officers, but the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham, who was one of the most distinguished of the early pioneers, was in fact mentioned both on the air and in print.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE DISPUTES ACT

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give a full report on the consultations that have taken place between representative people over the Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Act; and what action it is proposed to take?

The Prime Minister: The Government cannot make themselves responsible for reporting to the House upon discussions of this character.

Mr. Smith: In view of the action taken indirectly by the Government, can the Prime Minister state the Government's intentions with a view to dealing with the matter?

The Prime Minister: I certainly could not make a statement on Government policy in reply to a supplementary on a matter which raises many large, far-reaching, and even delicate issues.

Mr. Smith: In view of the way this has been handled, can the Prime Minister give an assurance that consideration will be given to the matter by the Government?

The Prime Minister: Consideration is always given by the Government to every matter, especially to those which seem to have a bearing on the general march of national cohesion and unity.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand that legislation on the subject would be non-contentious?

The Prime Minister: Consideration in no way implies conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to make arrangements to enable Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation to answer Questions in the House of Commons for that part of the activities of the British Broadcasting Corporation over which the Minister of Information has no control in the same way that the Forestry and Charity Commissioners reply for their respective Departments?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The present arrangements enable Parliament to be informed as to any matters of general policy affecting the British Broadcasting Corporation; but it has never been contemplated that matters affecting the day-to-day administration of the Corporation should be the subject of Question and Answer in the House. There is no analogy with the Forestry Commission and the Charity Commission, which are Government Departments.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the growing practice for the Minister of Information and the Governors of the B.B.C. to speak for that Corporation in the House? Would he consider setting up a Select Committee to consider the whole future of State broadcasting?

The Prime Minister: In no circumstances could I commit myself to that.

Sir Irving Albery: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that under the present altered arrangements the B.B.C. draws its finances through Government Departments and therefore the House is responsible for such expenditure, which was not formerly the case?

The Prime Minister: There are a great many public bodies and corporations which are directly or indirectly supplied by moneys under the control of Parliament which do not have Ministerial representatives.

Mr. Granville: In view of the statement yesterday by Sir Alan Powell, one of the Governors, on the future of the B.B.C. will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this close Government control of the B.B.C. will go after the war?

The Prime Minister: Let us get there first.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Poultry and Rabbits

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the success with which his Department has controlled the distribution of imported poultry and rabbits and of the marked economy in man-power and transport thereby effected, he will now reconsider his decision not to introduce a scheme for the controlled distribution of home-produced supplies?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): My hon. Friend will appreciate that the control of imported supplies of poultry and rabbits is a much simpler matter than the control of home-produced supplies which reach the market from a great number of individual producers. Nevertheless this matter has received most careful consideration. My Noble Friend has however reached the conclusion that, in view of the small total quantity of food involved and the limited man-power now available for new schemes of this kind, he would not be justified in proceeding along the lines of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Walkden: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that his Department has set up a most elaborate and efficient organisation to collect eggs? Cannot the same machine collect trapped rabbits and newly killed poultry and distribute them in the same way that they distribute the eggs? Is there any difficulty?

Mr. Mabane: We examined that and came to the conclusion that an organisation to perform those functions would be most costly and could not be linked up with the egg scheme.

Sir H. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the egg collecting scheme is very inefficient?

Mr. Walkden: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the absence of any control or organisation is leading to a gigantic black market?

Mr. Mabane: I would not say that, in so far as improper sales are made, they are connected with this aspect of the matter.

Funerals (Rationed Foods)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, while small allocations of rationed foodstuffs are made for weddings, none is made for funerals, and that this pressed very hardly upon the people of a certain South-Eastern town which was recently heavily bombed, where relatives came from a distance to attend funerals and no provision whatever could be made for them; and if he will reconsider the matter?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir, my Noble Friend does not feel he would be justified in undertaking to provide special issues of rationed foods in the circumstances suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Smith: Is it not possible for the Minister of Food to take a rather more human point of view in the matter? When you get badly blitzed towns and many people coming to attend funerals can no provision be made for them? Are they not quite as important as weddings?

Mr. Mabane: I have examined the case to which the hon. Member referred and I understand that there had been no single application for any additional food, as he suggests.

Soft Drinks Industry

Major Procter: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in the concentration of the soft drinks industry, he will ensure that a proportion of the members of the totally closed firms are appointed to the committee?

Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) and the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) on 24th February and 3rd March respectively.

Major Procter: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will ensure that the committee of the Soft Drinks War Time Association is elected by secret ballot, on the basis of one firm one vote?

Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend has received proposals for the reconstitution of the committee submitted in accordance with the articles of association of the War Time Association. He is considering these proposals together with the representations which he has received from the recognised trade associations in the industry and otherwise, and his decision will be given in due course.

Major Procter: Is my hon. Friend aware that if on the committee, which is deciding the manner in which this industry is to be carried on, suggestions are put forward by the big men, will it not give the small men no chance of having their voices heard or their businesses saved after the war?

Mr. Mabane: My hon. Friend can rely on my Noble Friend preventing anything of that kind happening.

Retailers (Registration)

Mr. Channon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider putting in hand the compilation of a register of food traders who have withdrawn from trade since the war began, or who may be forced to withdraw before the war is over, along the lines of the register that is being compiled of traders in non-food trades?

Mr. Mabane: Information is already available in local food offices about food retailers who have terminated their business activities during the war. It is not, therefore, necessary to compile a register such as my hon. Friend suggests. Food retailers and caterers will, however, be in the same position as retailers whose names are included in the non-food traders' register.

Aged People (Rations)

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the demand from all parts of the country for the granting of a small increase in the ration allowances of tea and sugar to people of 70 years of age and over who are living alone, who

ask for little other foods, many having neither the health nor strength to go to British Restaurants and could not in any event afford it; and will he reconsider the decision and grant an extra ration in these special cases?

Mr. Mabane: I regret I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member on 14th April.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that these old folk, after they have made their tea, stew it and boil it, and carry out the process over and over again so long as they can at least have the colour and flavour of tea; and in view of the fact that that is bad for them will he reconsider the question?

Colonel Cazalet: Should not people living under these conditions be considered rather separately?

Mr. Mabane: As I said last week, this matter has been given careful consideration, and since last week it has been considered again by my Noble Friend. There are, as hon. Members will appreciate, many difficulties in the way. It is, for example, difficult to see why the claim should be limited to people over 70 who live alone.

Sugar Fraud (Barking)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now give any information in connection with the sugar rationing fraud at Barking; whether he is aware that over 50 tons of sugar had been wrongfully set free on the market by the wrongful use of permits; how many people were involved in the charge; and whether he has seen the comments made by the Recorder who tried the case?

Mr. Mabane: As the answer is long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Leonard Dewdney Blake, former food executive officer of Barking, was indicted at the Central Criminal Court by the Director of Public Prosecutions with Alfred Henry Mann, director of a firm of wholesale grocers, and Arthur Spooner, William John Gibson, Douglas Glover


and Millicent Abrahams, retail grocers, for conspiring to use documents (sugar permits) issued for the purposes of the Sugar (Control) Orders of 1940 and 1942, and the Rationing Order, 1939, with intent to deceive. Blake, Mann and Spooner were each sentenced to three years' penal servitude and Mann was ordered to pay £100 costs. Gibson was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, while Glover was fined £200 and ordered to pay £50 costs. No evidence was offered against Abrahams, who was discharged. In addition William Arthur Larkin, Cornelius Almeroth, Bernard Benning and Margaret McIntosh, traders in sweets and confectionery were indicted for obtaining and supplying sugar without permits. Larkin was convicted and fined £200 and ordered to pay £50 costs. No evidence was offered against the other defendants, who were discharged. The case for the prosecution was that over 50 tons of sugar were improperly obtained as a result of the conspiracy. I have seen the comments made by the Recorder on the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (HOUSING, RAILWAY SERVANTS)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Northern Rhodesia it taking any vigorous action in regard to the bad housing conditions of workers on the Rhodesian railway?

Colonel Stanley: Comprehensive proposals for improving the housing of railway servants were submitted by Rhodesia Railways, Limited, towards the end of last year. In notifying these proposals for my information, the Governor indicated that he was fully aware of the importance of implementing at an early date the proposals for African housing, but I have no information as to the actual progress made with construction to date.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the local Government, because housing conditions are perfectly disgraceful and the subject of a great deal of local comment?

Colonel Stanley: As I have said, I do not know whether the work is proceeding, and I do not want to bring pressure if it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (HOUSING)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the serious housing problem which prevails in Trinidad; whether any vigorous action is being taken to meet it; whether any attempt is being made to use valuable local building materials; and to what extent existing building restrictions will be relaxed?

Colonel Stanley: I recently asked the Governor for a report on housing, which I am still awaiting. I am asking the Governor to include in his report information as to the use which is being made of local building material.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (LABOURERS, UNITED STATES NAVAL BASE)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding the recent launch disaster on the Demerara River, British Guiana, when a number of labourers working on the United States naval base there were drowned; whether he is aware of the renewed dissatisfaction of the native labourers working on the United States air base regarding rates of wages and conditions; and whether any negotiations are taking place regarding these?

Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, but I am making inquiries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business after the Recess?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I should first say a word about the Business to-day. I propose to move the two Motions which give the Government power to move the suspension of the Rule for a limited period of time. After the Report of the Budget Resolutions we shall take the Lords Amendments to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Motion relating to the War Damage (Highways Scheme) Order. We then propose to ask the House to consider three Amendments to the Nurses Bill which are expected to be received from another place during the course of our Sitting to-day. We think it desirable that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent before the Easter


Adjournment, and I suggest that we should take the Amendments to-day rather than encroach on the time available to hon. Members on the next Sitting Day for raising matters in which they are interested on the Adjournment.
The Business when we come back will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Supply (5th Allotted Day): Committee. A Debate will take place on Housing.
Second and Third Sitting Days—Committee stage of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill.
If there is time on the Third Sitting Day, we propose to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Bill and make further progress with any outstanding Measures, including the Second Reading of the Railway Freight Rebates Bill [Lords.]

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House first, whether he will bear in mind the possibility of a war statement being necessary on the resumption of the House and that that may necessitate some alternation in the Business arrangements; second, while realising that the discussion on refugees is still continuing and that it is impossible for the Government to agree about any time, I assume that the Government have in mind the earliest possible date for a Debate; third, having regard to the widespread interest in the House on the question of a Select Committee on war pensions and the answer which the Prime Minister gave last week, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the early prospect of a Debate so that the arguments can be stated on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Eden: With regard to the first Question, if the situation is such that a war statement can usefully be made to the House, the Business will be rearranged accordingly. In reply to the second Question, I had hoped we could have the refugee Debate in the week in which we resume, but I cannot be certain that the Ministers concerned will be back, and it would be inconvenient to readjust Business at the last moment. I think it would be better to postpone it for a week, and I hope it will be taken in the following week. In reply to the third question, I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir Richard Acland: Can the Government express even a provisional view as to whether opportunity can be found for the Motion standing in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends?

[That this House, while recognising that the Prime Minister deservedly enjoys the personal affection of the overwhelming majority of his fellow citizens, who share his determination to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion, is of the opinion that the results of some recent by-elections, contested on registers whose obsolesence favours the Government candidates, reveal that no general confidence is extended to the policy of the Government as a whole, and that, for the sake both of early victory and of lasting peace, this policy should therefore be altered in such manner as will show a greater understanding of the fact that this war is a Part of a world-wide revolution out of which must emerge a new civilisation firmly based on the common ownership of all major productive resources.]

Mr. Eden: I regret that I cannot provide facilities.

Mr. Shinwell: I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he proposed to indicate to-day, in relation to Business after the Recess, what the Government's intentions were about the Old Age Pensions Bill. Can he now give a firm statement on that subject? When are we to receive this Bill?

Mr. Eden: I understand that it is practically ready. As soon as it is ready it will be published. I hope that it will be available to Members after Easter.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have had promises of this character for many months now?

Mr. Eden: With respect, I do not think the hon. Member is quite justified in that statement. The undertaking we have given is that it would be made available and brought before the House this Session. That undertaking I confirmed a short time ago, and I hope that it will be available shortly.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the two Motions standing upon the Order Paper for to-day in the name of the Prime Minister, I and some of my hon. Friends are in a difficulty. If the


House decides to pass the first Motion and we succeed in persuading the House to reject the second Motion, we shall be left in a funny position. I want to ask you, Sir, whether it would be permissible to discuss both Motions together, in order to try to find some way round the difficulty, because unless we get satisfaction with regard to the second Motion we propose to divide the House.

Mr. Speaker: I should think probably it would be more convenient to discuss the Motions together.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the postponement, which I recognise to be unavoidable, of the Debate on refugees, may we take it that the unexpectedly long time taken over the Bermuda discussions will not mean that any decisions at which they arrive as to rescue measures which can be implemented or are within the control of the Government will be held up, as time is passing and the massacres are continuing?

Mr. Eden: Yes, I think the hon. Lady will be right in that conclusion. At the same time I do not think it is quite fair to say that they have been a very long time over the discussions. They began only on Monday, and to-day is Wednesday.

Mr. Messer: With regard to the Lords Amendments to the Nurses Bill, can the Leader of the House say how long the House will be in possession of those Amendments before we are asked to consider them? It is asking rather a lot to ask us to decide our action without having had much chance to study them.

Mr. Eden: I have not yet got the Amendments from another place. It may be that we shall not be able to consider them to-day, but I was anxious to try to avoid interfering with the time of Private Members on the next Sitting Day.

Sir I. Albery: On the question of Business, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you can inform us what subjects are likely to be selected for discussion on the Motion for Adjournment for the Easter Recess?

Mr. Speaker: At the moment I have not yet come to any decision, but I will let hon. Members know during the day.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Will the Leader of the House consider the desirability

of providing time in the near future in order that the House may discuss the very important question of our propaganda abroad?

Mr. Eden: I thought that might come later. I thought that the general feeling in the discussion on the B.B.C. part of it the other day was that it was pretty good.

PUBLIC PETITIONS

First Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

WAR DAMAGE BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Amendments made by Lords to the Bill, as circulated to this House, to be printed. [Bill 27.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

National Loans Bill,

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

Nurses Bill, with Amendments.

BUSINESS AND SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of the 12th November, relating to Business of the House, be read and amended by leaving out paragraph (3).
The object of this Motion and of the other Motion on the Paper standing in the name of the Prime Minister is to give the Government power to move the suspension of the Rule for a limited period of time. This proposal arose out of discussions which have taken place recently with regard to our business arrangements, and I think this idea found support from hon. Members in all parts of the House. There have been occasions within my experience when it has been the desire of the House to extend Debates for a definitely limited time, perhaps an hour or two, and when frankly, as Leader of the House, I rather hesitated to propose the suspension of the Rule, because the Debate might drift on longer than most Members of the House would wish. I think this new arrangement would meet the convenience of the House on such occasions, and the Motion which I propose, which has been drafted by the authorities of this House, would carry it out. The House will understand


that this power would be additional to the power which the Government already possess, and which they must maintain, to move to suspend the Rule for an indefinite period. Hon. Members will see that the second Motion is somewhat longer, but I thought it would be for the convenience of the House and make for easier reference to set out again the Rule, with the various amendments which have been made, in full instead of amending what has already been amended. That is the purpose of the two Motions, and I hope they will commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Stokes: I do not wish to detain the House longer than it wishes to be detained, and first of all I wish to say to you, Mr. Speaker, how grateful I am to you for deciding that we can discuss the two Motions together. I would say to the Leader of the House that I think it was most unfortunate that more notice was not given us, particularly as regards the terms of the second Motion. I only became aware of the terms on getting my Order Paper in the House to-day, and there has not been time to organise a proper discussion about some of the evils which I read into it.

Mr. Eden: I should like to make it clear that the Motion was put upon the Order Paper last week, so that the House should know about it.

Mr. Stokes: I apologise to my right hon. Friend. My Whips did not call my attention to it. I withdraw my criticism. May I first make it clear that those who think as I do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"]—that will be made clear as we go on—do not object to paragraph (a) of paragraph 8 of the second Motion but that we have every objection to paragraph (b), unless we can get some modification from the Government. As I understand it, the custom of the House prior to the war was that the suspension of the Standing Order should be moved at the commencement of business, so as to give everyone an opportunity of knowing what was being done, and the Motion for the suspension was put upon the Order Paper. That procedure was amended on 12th November so as to enable the Government to move its indefinite suspension at any time, and we do not object to that, but it does seem that if the Government are now to be allowed arbitrarily to decide the length of

a Sitting of the House it ought to be done after notice has been given, or at least at a time when other hon. Members are present in the Chamber and will have some opportunity of expressing their views. The Motion says that this may be done without notice and at any time, and therefore it is conceivable that it might be done when the House was extremely empty, and the Government could then proceed with Business which otherwise would be substantially opposed. I want to ask that at least arrangements should be made for notice to be given.
I can quite see that when the suspension is to be made for an unlimited period there is not much object in debating it, but as one of the small minority of Members of this House who really represent the people, I wish to safeguard the interests of the people and to ensure that our view is heard, and I can well conceive that this new Motion might be used to operate against the will of the people. As one who does not submit himself to the bludgeonings and lecturings and circumventions of Whips and other people, I would ask that the Government should postpone proceeding with this Motion if they cannot at once clarify the situation and assure us that there shall be no unfair treatment of the minorities here. I know that the reply will be that the usual channels will look after that, but some of us have not got any usual channels, and it may be that our curtailed liberties will be further restricted. [Interruption.] I speak for myself, and I have several usual channels, but to my regret they are so often blocked, and I cannot get a message through. Therefore, I wish to make this protest, and if I cannot get satisfaction on the point, I propose, with the support of other hon. Members, to divide the House.

Mr. Lipson: It seems to me that this proposal would deprive back benchers of some of the rights which they now possess, and for that reason I view it with some concern. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, but, as I see it, there is no justification for this proposal at this time. Had there been any definite obstruction on the part of hon. Members in the conduct of Business, there might be some reason for it, but the occasions on which the House has sat longer than the Government Whips


desired it to sit have been extremely few. Apparently the only reason why this proposal has been introduced is because there are occasions when hon. Members wish to speak but are not to be allowed to do so, because the Debate will have to be closed by a certain time. It is often when the Rule is suspended indefinitely that the back-bench Member has an opportunity of taking part in the Debate. I would remind hon. Members that the average time spent in this House on debating any particular Motion, is about six hours, if one excludes Questions and frequently, on important subjects, about half that time is taken up by Front Bench speakers on both sides. In those circumstances it does not seem fair that back benchers should be deprived of a right which they now possess.
I saw in a newspaper at the week-end a suggestion that the reason for this proposal was that when agreements had been arrived at by the leaders as to when debates should end, the back benchers sometimes dared to prolong debate in spite of such agreements. Some of us would like to know who are these leaders. At any rate, there are times when even those who have leaders are justified in differing from them. My right hon. Friend in whose name this Motion stands has, himself, on occasions, opposed his leaders, and I think it will be agreed that the occasions when he found himself in conflict with the leaders of his party were those occasions when, as the country realises, he was most right. I feel this is a serious matter concerning the Privileges of Members, and back benchers have not so many Privileges that they can afford to be deprived of this one. On this question of taking away the right of debate, I would remind the House that every hon. Member has an equal right to take part in Debates and to represent the views of his constituents and hon. Members will only want to prolong debate at a time when they feel strongly there is need for a wide expression of opinion. Because there is no justification for this proposal, in practice or in theory, I ask the House not to approve of it.

Mr. Woodburn: While I agree that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has put forward what might be regarded as a reasonable objection to the proposal, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)

is under a complete misapprehension of what the proposal actually means. If my recollection serves me right, this arrangement to move the suspension of the Standing Order without notice, was proposed to protect back benchers. The proposal is that, if, in the course of Business, it is found that more Members desire to speak than are likely under the ordinary procedure to get the opportunity of speaking, the right should be reserved to the Leader of the House at any time during the dy, to move that the time should be extended for a definite period. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is actually opposing his own interests in seeking to prevent it being possible for the Leader of the House to move an extension.

Mr. Stokes: I never said anything of the sort. I said specifically I had no objection to the suspension of the Rule for an unlimited period, but that if it was to be for a limited time only, I thought it was likely to operate unfairly for the back bencher.

Mr. Woodburn: I must confess that, to me, my hon. Friend's attitude still seems unreasonable. I should imagine that it would still be to the disadvantage of back benchers if, on any particular day, because the suspension of the Rule for an unlimited period could not be secured, they were not to get any extension at all. From my hon. Friend's own point of view and from the point of view of the House generally, I cannot see why there should be any objection to this power being reserved to the Leader of the House. I think it would be an advantage that the Leader of the House, if, in the course of a Debate, he found it desirable to have the time extended, should have the power to move the suspension of the Rule for a limited time, or for an unlimited time, as circumstances dictated.

Mr. Holdsworth: I do not think the last speaker has quite grasped the point. As one who has been a Whip, I want to assist the Leader of the House as much as I can now that I am no longer a Whip, because I know the difficulties which exist in war-time. But I am most anxious to see that the Privileges of the Private Member are retained, and I think this Motion is wrong on the point mentioned by the hon. Member for


Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). No one could object if an unlimited time were given and an appeal made that the Debate should close at a reasonable hour, but I think it is dangerous to fix a limit to the period of extension, and that is why some of us object to the proposal. I do not object to the Leader of the House having the power to move the suspension of the Rule, even without a Debate, if it leaves us an unlimited time, because when that Motion is carried and when we have got on to the Business to which it applies, we have the opportunity of expressing our views. But if there is a consensus of opinion that a certain matter should be debated adequately and a limited period, say of an hour or something like that, is allowed, then Private Members are deprived of opportunities of expressing their views by the very fact of that limitation. What I suggest is that we should give the power of suspension, with or without notice, but for an unlimited time. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have it now."] I know we have it now, but why circumscribe what we have now, by putting in a limited period? That is the whole question at issue, and I suggest that this proposal might be reconsidered from that point of view.

Mr. Tinker: I do not think the House fully understands the position. As I view it, I think this proposal would be an advantage. Suppose, for example, that there is a Debate on old age pensions and that the feeling arises that we ought to have further time for it. Negotiations can then take place under this proposal, and if the Leader of the House is agreeable, the Rule can be suspended for a period of, say, three or four hours. He can say, "I am prepared to agree to continue for a certain length of time, but I want a definite period fixed at which the Debate will conclude." I am assuming that the Leader of the House is reasonable and has a regard for the view of the majority in the House. I would be prepared to accept the fixing of a definite period, and I think three or four hours would do. I have sat here as we have all sat here on occasions while a Debate has gone on from hour to hour, wondering how long it would take to finish it. On the whole I think this suggestion a good one. It all depends, of course, on the reasonableness or otherwise of the view taken by the Leader of the House, but

from what I have seen of the present Leader of the House he is always willing to take into account the opinions of hon. Members as to the length of time desired for a Debate. He has always been amenable to the views of the House, and if we should ever get a Leader of the House who acted otherwise, why then would be the time to kick. The House of Commons always has the opportunity of making its protest. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would be too late."] It is never too late for the House of Commons to get anything altered, and if I found that the Leader of the House was not acting in a reasonable way, I should raise objection in some form or other. At the moment I am agreeable to the suggestion in this Motion.

Mr. Stephen: Although I was somewhat dubious about the proposal; possibly it is a matter for experiment. As I see it, suppose there is a Motion by the Leader of the House to extend the Debate for two hours, and the Motion is carried. The Debate goes on for two hours; what happens? There are still Members who wish to continue the discussion. They can seek to catch the Speaker's eye, and if the discussion is going on, the Government will either have to move the Closure or give another day for the business. Possibly the Government will be in a stronger position to have Mr. Speaker accept the Motion for the Closure if they have given an additional two hours. I can scarcely recall, after having been here for 20 years, an occasion when Mr. Speaker has refused a Government Motion of that character. I can see a possibility that there might be more occasions when there would be an extension of the period of debate under the proposals now put forward by the Government, but the Government will be put in the position of having a certain moral justification for asking for the Closure, and for getting it. It is very much a matter for experiment. I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member who took objection originally in this matter, after many failures to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I am not in a state of enthusiasm for the Motion one way or another, but I think the House should try it for the time being.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I have a suggestion to make to the Leader of the House. It is obvious that a Motion that the Government may


suspend the Rule at any time is in the interests of back benchers. War-time conditions make it impossible for notice of the Motion to be given, but the back bencher may well benefit by that fact. The Motion to suspend for a limited time is however a little dangerous, because occasions might, and almost certainly would, arise where back bench Members who are interested in some particular Debate would wish for a longer period than that proposed by the Government. I therefore make the suggestion that the position could best be met in this way: Although an ordinary Motion for the suspension of the Rule is not debatable and can only be divided upon, I suggest that where the Government are proposing to suspend the Rule for a limited time they should allow that Motion to be debatable. Many of the objections that have been voiced to-day would then vanish. It would be well for the House to decide whether the Motion should be for a limited time or for an unlimited period. That I believe would meet many of the objections of back bench Members to the present procedure.

Mr. Murray: Earlier in this discussion an hon. Member suggested that sweet reasonableness might meet the situation. My mind runs back to the time when we were discussing the Beveridge Report and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an appeal that we might finish the Debate. Then I remember that the Leader of the House came in about an hour later, and asked also that we might give up the Debate. If the time of the Debate had been fixed with that sweet reasonableness, we should have been compelled to finish at an hour when some of us would have had no say at all. Some of us sat here for eight or nine hours in order to get into that Debate. We ought to be allowed opportunities, when we are interested in the subject and are willing to sit here for eight or nine hours in order to have an opportunity of speaking. Hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of getting their speeches off their chests. If I understand anything of this House of Commons, I believe it is one of the most horrible things to have a speech on your chest when a right hon. Gentleman comes in and says, "Close down, gentlemen, please." I hope the back benchers will press this matter that we should have

unlimited time when a subject is important. We have our constituents to represent; remember that. Our constituents are anxious that we should let our voices be heard in this House, and, when a matter is of great importance to our constituents, we ought to have unlimited time to get our speeches off. I remember the story of a man who once went out to deliver a great speech. He said, "Friends." He scratched his head. Then he said, "Only God and I know what it is taking to get this speech out." Then he scratched his head again and said, "Now, only God knows."

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: There is a great deal of misapprehension among hon. Members about what this Motion proposes and what the effect of rejecting it would be. Before the war and in ordinary times, there was a Rule, the 11 o'clock Rule as it then was, which could be suspended. There had to be no Debate. It was made at the beginning of the Sitting, with notice. That suspension was only used to further the Business of the Government. When the Government wanted to make certain of getting a piece of Business through they had the right to suspend the 11 o'clock Rule. Government supporters usually used to vote for it, and the Opposition to vote against it. It would have been a mistake to allow it to be debatable, as that would have wasted the very time that the Government wanted to save.

Mr. Holdsworth: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Government used the suspension of the Rule only to facilitate their Business. I do not think that is quite correct. In the main it was correct, but if the Government knew that a Debate was likely to take a long time, they used it also for that purpose.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct, and I do not think it was a point on which to interrupt my speech. It is a point on which the hon. Member's opinion differs from mine. I adhere to my statement that, as a rule—I will put that in—it was used by the Government in order to facilitate the passage of their Business. Since the war and the alteration of the hours of sitting, we have been very much restricted in time, and the Government have made this concession, that they will sometimes move the suspension of the Rule in order to allow a little longer time for Members


to have a Debate, but they have always retained the right in their own hands to move that suspension. A good many of the speeches made to-day proceeded apparently upon the assumption that the House could have a suspension of the Rule when it liked, and that it could be moved by anyone in the House. Of course, that is not the case. The Government have retained through all this business the sole right in their own need, if they will it, and not otherwise, of moving the suspension of the Standing Order. It is quite true that when they do so for the purpose of allowing a Debate to go on, they do so on the initiative of other persons in the House who want a longer Debate. What would be the effect of turning down this proposal? The effect would simply be this, that the Government would only move the suspension for their own Business on the one hand, or when they were quite willing for the Debate to go on indefinitely, and generally they would probably not take that view. They would prefer to stand pat and do nothing.
It was suggested that a great number of Members would like, on many occasions, particularly in view of the length of the day now and the shortness of Parliamentary Business, to go on an hour or two longer; in fact, that on a particular day the hours of sitting should be those which were suggested when we arranged our present hours. The Government have indicated that if that were the case, they might be willing, probably would be willing, to suspend the Rule far more often than at the present time. If Members will bear that in mind, I think they will see that so far from this proposal limiting their Privileges, it really extends them, because at the present time, and after it, the Government technically have the absolute decision in their own hands in every case. They are not likely to give a suspension for the wishes of the House except on very occasional opportunities, because they will not want to have this suspension for any great length of time. If this alteration in the Rule is made, then the Government are far more likely to be willing to accede to a feeling running through the House that one or two hours of additional time might be given. What prevents the Government from doing that at the present time, and what prevents other

Members of the House who are quite willing to see a reasonable extension given, is this: Under the present Rule, once the extension is given, it may go on indefinitely, half through the night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members have asked me a question. My answer is that it may be the wish of one Member here and one Member there to sit here all night, but it may equally not be the wish of the great majority of the House. Whenever that is so the great majority of the House will support the Government in refusing to give an indefinite suspension of time, whereas the great majority of the House would be willing to support the Government in giving a limited extension of time. It is because I think that is the prevailing opinion in the House as a whole that I hope the House will support this proposal, which will be to the advantage of Members generally, because it will enable us to suspend the Rule far more frequently if we know that in so suspending it we are not opening the door to an all-night Sitting, which many of us do not want under present circumstances.

Mr. Eden: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I dealt with these points, by permission of the House. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for what he said. I think there are one or two points which I can clear up which may facilitate a decision. This is not some sort of Government plot, nor is it arranged to facilitate Government business. That is not the purpose. So far as I am concerned, as a member of the Government I should have no regrets if this Motion was defeated, but I should have regrets as Leader of the House, and I should like to try and explain just for a few minutes why. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on one point. I think he must assume that under any Rules the Leader of the House tries to meet the wishes of the House; otherwise, everything becomes nonsense straight away. On that assumption it would certainly not be normal practice for the Leader to move this Motion without notice. I think the normal practice would be to give notice so that Members should have full information in advance. If we keep this power, occasions may arise when Members would like an hour or two hours extra. I have known occasions when I have felt that I


would have liked to have been able to move such an extension, but when I have not felt like giving an indefinite extension. Therefore I would like to have that power.

Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman says that the object of the Leader of the House is to meet the wishes of the House. What about the rights of the minority according to the Rule as it now stands? Would he regard a minority as representing the wish of the House?

Mr. Eden: That is not very easy to answer. It seems almost to answer itself. I would naturally try, and I do try, to take account of that fact. Secondly, someone has said that if this power is once given to the Leader of the House, all sorts of terrible things may happen thereafter [Interruption]. That is what an hon. Member said. The hon. Member who made that interjection was not in the House. There is no danger whatever of that, because this power lapses at the end of the Session and would have to be renewed again. I suggest that we take the view of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and take it as an experiment. Let us see how it works. I think that as the result of experience Members will like it and will wish to continue it. If they do not, they will not agree to its renewal. This is not being done to provide the Government with special facilities at all. If the Government want their Business, they suspend indefinitely, and away they go. This is to provide Members with a little more time when it may be thought necessary without interfering with general Rules which have been accepted.

Sir A. Southby: Would the Leader of the House consider the advisability of allowing Members of the House to move to amend the Government's Motion in the case of a specified period of suspension?

Mr. Eden: The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion is that it should be debated? I think that would be difficult. I believe the result would be that we should spend most of the extra time debating as to whether we should have it or not. Let us see how this thing works. It is purely an experiment, and I think it will be useful, and we can repeat it if it is desired. If not, hon. Members need not renew it.

Mr. Mathers: If, during a period when the Rule has been suspended for a limited time, it is found that the wish of the House obviously is to continue beyond that fixed period, would the Leader of the House consider it? Perhaps this should be addressed to you, Mr. Speaker; would it be in Order to use this Rule again, and to suspend for a further fixed period, or to suspend for an indefinite period during the same Sitting? It seems to me that, knowing the fact that this House can always do what it wishes to do, that would be the way in which the Rules could be used, and could be used for the benefit of the House.

Mr. Eden: I think the only way out if that was the position would be to give another half day or make some such arrangement. We could not possibly suspend the Rule again during the same Sitting.

Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone): Having heard the second statement of the Leader of the House, I am even less reassured than by his first statement. It seems to me that there is no necessity for this Motion at all, none whatever, because it would appear quite clearly, I hope, to a few Members of this House feat there is no reason for the Government to have the opportunity of suspending the Sittings of the House for a limited period because they can always do that, with their great majority, by moving the Closure. I know nothing against that, Therefore I think we have to look a little deeper for their motive. Why is it that they do not want to have to move the Closure, having suspended the Rules of the House for an unlimited period? They do not want to do that because they could then be accused of stifling debate. I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge. What will happen in future is that on practically every occasion when we suspend the Rule it will be done for a limited period, and the opportunity for every Member to have his say will be taken away. The only time when some Members get a good chance in this House to get their speeches of their chests, as an hon. Member has put it, is when the Rule is suspended for an unlimited period. I believe that by this Motion the rights of private Members are being further encroached upon. I would remind the House that, as the result of our war-time


rules and regulations, private Members' rights have been taken more and more. We are not allowed to introduce Private Bills, and many other Privileges have been taken from us. The fact that we are going to be limited on certain occasions as to the time in which Members can address the House is an additional encroachment. It is, to my mind, a further imposition upon back benchers and should be resisted. It should not be the Leader of the House who is advocating this, but the Chief Whip, because this seems to me to be just another of his sinister children.

Mr. David Adams: I agree with those who believe that this is likely to prove a very serious limitation of our powers of debate in this House. Experience shows that when the Rule is suspended, the sense of the House brings the Debate to a conclusion within a reasonable time. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in my judgment, gave the case away, when he supported the Government. He assumed that the Government would make the period sufficiently long to enable all Members who desired to speak to do so. He mentioned three or four hours. Shall we have any guarantee that one hour or an hour and a half will not be considered sufficient by the Government? Once this Motion is passed, it will automatically become the rule and the law in all future Sessions. It has been said that this will prevent long Sittings. Why should it do so? Has not the time been reasonably used by Members? We are giving the Government the right to say that Debates should be strictly limited, and that some hon. Members who desire to speak should not be allowed to do so. We know that not everything that the Government introduce is acceptable to Members, and we, the back benchers, desire to put our own point of view. That right will depart, except with the good will of the Leader of the House and the Government. They have all the powers they desire now to enable them to stifle debate, except the power to limit the time at the disposal of the House.

Mr. Bernays: I would just like to say that this proposal gives me and some of my hon. Friends some concern. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be the result of not passing it. What is more important to me is the

question, What would be the result of passing it? I have only one comment to make. It seems to me that we are taking from ourselves the very powerful right of keeping the Government up all night on a particular issue. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite support this proposal, because they have used so powerfully in the past the weapon of the all-night Sitting.

Mr. Tinker: This is war-time. We have altered things because of the war.

Mr. Bernays: I agree; but there is a danger in doing things in war-time which you would not do in peace-time. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) spoke of the importance of getting things off your chest. It seems to me that the use of the all-night Sitting is rather to get concessions from the Government. I have known concessions to be given at three or four o'clock in the morning which would not have been given if the Sitting had been limited. The House should consider very carefully before granting the Government this power.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The hon. Member said that this concession was for war-time. As I understand it, it is not for war-time, but for the Session only. I am in favour of the Motion, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider one point, relating to the first two lines in paragraph 10. With the experience he gains, will he give consideration to the elimination of part of the first two lines of paragraph 10? He has said that he is willing to do all he can for the convenience of Members and to meet the wishes of the House. After giving a limited suspension, he might find it the wish of the House, and not against the wishes of the Government, that a further short extension should be given. Would he consider whether it would then be possible for the Government, on the same day, to grant a further extension? I am not asking for an answer now, because I propose to vote for the Motion, but I ask him to consider it in future.

Question put,
That the Order of the House of the 12th November, relating to Business of the House, be read and amended by leaving out paragraph (3).

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 12.

Division No. 17.
AYES.



Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Peto, Major B. A. J.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Graham, Captain A. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Price, M. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehavan)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Procter, Major H. A.


Assheton, R.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Pym, L. R.


Banfield, J. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Gruffydd, W. J.
Radford, E. A.


Barstow, P. G.
Guy, W. H.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral, T. P.
Hannah, I. C.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Harvey, T. E.
Rickards, G. W.


Beechman, N. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Roberts, W.


Benson, G.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Blair, Sir R.
Hicks, E. G.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Higgs, W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Hill, Prof. A. V.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Salt, E. W.


Bowles, F. G.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Savory, Professor D. L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Selley, H. R.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hughes, R. M.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Buchanan, G.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Snadden, W. McN.


Burden, T. W.
James, Wing-Corn. A. (Well'borough)
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
James, Admiral Sir W. (Porte'th, N.)
Stephen, C.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypoal)
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Jewson, P. W.
Storey, S.


Campbell, J. D. (Antrim)
John, W.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g&amp;C'km'n)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cary, R. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Summers, G. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Key, C. W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Colegate, W. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tate, Mavis C.


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Leonard, W.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M. (N'flk,N.)
Leslie, J. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Levy, T.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'thm'tn)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Liddall, W. S.
Thorne, W.


Critchley, A.
Linstead, H. N.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)
Thurtle, E.


Culverwell, C. T.
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Loftus, P. C.
Tomlinson, G.


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Mabane, W.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Doland, G. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Douglas, F. C. R.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Drewe, C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Ward, Col Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Mack, J. D.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
McKie, J. H.
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McNeil, H.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mander, G. le M.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, F.
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Ellis, Sir G.
Martin, J. H.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Emery, J. F.
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Messer, F.
Willink, H. U.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Wilmot, John


Foot, D. M.
Montague, F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwih, W.)


Foster, W.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Woodburn, A.


Frankel, D.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
York, Major C.


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Oldfield, W. H.



Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Garro Jones, G. M.
Petherick, Major M.
Mr. Boulton and Mr. A. Young.


Gates, Major, E. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Bellenger, F. J.
Granville, E. L.
Turton, R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Horabin, T. L.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Bevan, A.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)



Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Stokes and Mr. Lipson.

Ordered,
That during the present Session the following provisions shall be substituted for paragraphs (8) and (9) of Standing Order No. 1:—
'(8) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown, either with or without notice, and either at the commencement of public business or at any time thereafter, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect either—

(a) That the proceedings on any specified business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House' or
(b) That the proceedings on any specified business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House' for a specified period after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.

(9) If a motion made under the preceding paragraph be agreed to the business so specified shall not be interrupted if it is under discussion at the hour appointed for the interruption of business, may be entered upon at any hour although opposed, and, if under discussion when the business is postponed under the provisions of any Standing Order, may be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business.

Provided that business exempted for a specified period shall not be entered upon, or be resumed after the expiration of that period, and, if not concluded earlier, shall be interrupted at the end of that period, and the relevant provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of this Standing Order shall then apply.

(10) Provided always that not more than one motion under paragraph (8) may be made at any one sitting, and that, after any business exempted from the operation of the order is disposed of, the remaining business of the sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.'"—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [12th April].

Resolutions reported:

BEER (EXCISE).

1. "That, as from the thirteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-three, the duty of excise charged in respect of beer under section one of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, shall be charged at the following increased rates:

£
s.
d.


For every 36 gallons of worts of a specific gravity of 1,027 degrees or less
6
18
4½


For every 36 gallons of worts of a specific gravity exceeding 1,027 degrees—

£
s.
d.


For the first 1,027 degrees
6
18
4½


For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

5
1½


and so in proportion for any less number of gallons:





and, in the case of beer in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty at the foregoing increased rates has been paid, the excise drawback allowed under that section shall be allowed at the following increased rates:

£
s.
d.


For every 36 gallons the worts whereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity of 1,027 degrees or less
6
18
6½


For every 36 gallons the worts whereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity exceeding 1,027 degrees—





For the first 1,027 degrees
6
18
6½


For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

5
1½


and so in proportion for any less number of gallons:

Provided that, as respects beer the worts whereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity of less than 1,027 degrees, the amount of drawback allowable shall not exceed by more than twopence for every 36 gallons the amount of duty which is shown as aforesaid to have been paid.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

BEER (CUSTOMS).

2. "That, as from the thirteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-three, the duty of customs charged in respect of beer under section one of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, shall be charged at the following increased rates:

£
s.
d.


For every 36 gallons the worts whereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity of 1,037 degrees or less—





In the case of beer being an Empire product
6
18
9½


In the case of beer not being an Empire product
7
18
9½


For every 36 gallons the worts whereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity exceeding 1,027 degrees—





In the case of beer being an Empire product—





For the first 1,027 degrees
6
18
9½


For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

5
1½


In the case of beer not being an Empire product—





For the first 1,027 degrees
7
18
9½


For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

5
1½


and so in proportion for any less number of gallons;

and, in the case of beer in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty at the foregoing increased rates has been paid, the customs drawback allowed under that section shall be allowed at the following increased rates:

£
s.
d.


For every 36 gallons the worts whereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity of 1,027 degrees or less—





In the case of beer being an Empire product
6
18
6½


In the case of beer not being an Empire product
7
18
6½


For every 36 gallons the worts whereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity exceeding 1,027 degrees—





In the case of beer being an Empire product—





For the first 1,027 degrees
6
18
6½


For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

5
1½


In the case of beer not being an Empire product—





For the first 1,027 degrees
7
18
6½


For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

5
1½


and so in proportion for any less number of gallons:

Provided that, as respects beer the worts whereof were, before fermentation, of a specific gravity of less than 1,027 degrees, the amount of drawback allowable shall not exceed the amount of duty which is shown

TABLE


1.
2.
2.


Description of Spirits
Preferential Rates
Full Rates


In cask
In bottle
In cask
In bottle


For every gallon computed at proof of—
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Brandy or rum
7
17
10
7
18
10
8
0
4
8
1
4


Imitation rum or geneva
7
17
11
7
18
11
8
0
5
8
1
5


Unsweetened spirits other than those already enumerated
7
17
11
7
17
11
8
0
5
8
0
5


For every gallon of perfumed spirits
12
12
0
12
13
0
12
16
0
12
17
0


For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures and other preparations in bottle entered in such manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested
—
10
13
10
—
10
17
2


For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description not heretofore mentioned, including naphtha and methylic alcohol purified so as to be potable, and mixtures and preparations containing spirits
7
17
11
7
18
11
8
0
5
8
1
5

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

WINES (CUSTOMS).

5. "That, as from the thirteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-three, the

as aforesaid to have been paid, less threepence for every 36 gallons.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913"

SPIRITS (EXCISE)

3. "That, as from the thirteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-three the rate of the duty of excise charged on spirits by section three of the Finance Act, 1920, in addition to the duties specified in Part III of the First Schedule to that Act, shall be increased to seven pounds, seventeen shillings and sixpence per gallon computed at proof.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

SPIRITS (CUSTOMS).

4. "That, as from the thirteenth day of April nineteen hundred and forty-three the duties of customs charged on spirits of the descriptions set out in the first column of the following Table by section three of the Finance Act, 1920, in addition to the duties specified in Part II of the First Schedule to that Act, shall—

(a) in the case of spirits being Empire products, be charged at the increased rates shown in the second column of that Table; and
(b) in the case of spirits not being Empire products, be charged at the increased rates shown in the third column of that Table.

duties of customs charged on wines under paragraph (a) and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section three of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, shall respectively be charged at the increased rates set out in Part I and Part II of the following Table, and the duty charged under paragraph (b) of that Sub-section on wine not exceeding twenty-seven degrees of proof spirit and being an Empire product shall be increased accordingly.

TABLE.


PART I.


Wines not being Empire Products.


Description of Wine.



Rate of duty per gallon.



£
s.
d.


Not exceeding 25 degrees proof spirit

17
0


Exceeding 25 degrees proof spirit and not exceeding 42 degrees proof spirit
1
14
0


For every degree or fraction of a degree above 42 degrees proof spirit, an additional duty

2
10


Sparkling, an additional duty
1
2
0


Still, in bottle, an additional duty

3
6

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

SWEETS (EXCISE).

6. "That as from the thirteenth day of April nineteen hundred and forty-three, the rate of the duty of excise on sweets shall be increased from one pound three shillings and ninepence to one pound ten shillings per gallon in the case of sparkling sweets, and from eleven shilling and sixpence to fourteen shillings and sixpence per gallon in the case of other sweets.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (CUSTOMS).

7. "That, as from the thirteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-three, in lieu of the full and preferential duties of customs theretofore chargeable on tobacco imported into the United Kingdom, there shall be charged on tobacco so imported of the descriptions set out in the first column of the following Table—

(a) in the case of tobacco not being an Empire product, duties of customs at the rates respectively specified in the second column of that Table; and
(b) in the case of tobacco being an Empire product, duties of customs at the rates respectively specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Description of Tobacco
Rates of duty per pound


Full rates
Preferential rates


Tobacco unmanufactured—
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof—








unstripped
1
15
6
1
13
11½


stripped
1
15
6½
1
13
11⅞


containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof—








unstripped
1
16
6
1
14
9½


stripped
1
16
6½
1
14
9⅞


Tobacco manufactured, viz.:—








Cigars
2
4
1
2
1
1⅝


Cigarettes
2
0
7
1
18
2½


Cavendish or Negrohead
1
19
9
1
17
6


Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond
1
18
0
1
16
0½


Other manufactured tobacco
1
18
0
1
16
0½


Snuff—








containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof
1
17
4
1
15
5⅞


containing not more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof
1
19
9
1
17
6


and so in proportion for any less quantity.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (EXCISE)

8. "That, as from the thirteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-three, in lieu of the duties of excise theretofore chargeable on tobacco grown in the United Kingdom, there shall be charged on tobacco so grown of the descriptions set out in the first column of the Table duties of excise at the rates respectively specified in the second column of that Table:

TABLE


Description of Tobacco
Rates of duty per pound


Tobacco unmanufactured—
£
s.
d.


containing 10lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof
1
13
9½


containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof
1
14
7½


Tobacco manufactured, viz.:—





Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond
1
16
0½


and so in proportion for any less quantity.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (DRAWBACK)

9, "That, as respects tobacco on which there have been paid duties of customs or excise at the increased rates for which provision is made by any Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means together with this Resolution, drawback shall be allowed at the rates set out in the following Table instead of at the rates set out in Part III of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1942:

TABLE


Description of Tobacco
Rates per pound


In respect of tobacco on which full customs duty has been paid
In respect of tobacco on which customs duty at a preferential rate or excise duty has been paid



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Cigars
1
18
2
1
16
7½


Cigarettes
1
16
6
1
14
11½


Cut, roll, cake or other manufactured tobacco
1
16
3
1
14
8½


Snuff (not being offal snuff)
1
16
0
1
14
5½


Stalks, shorts or other refuse of tobacco including offal snuff
1
15
9
1
14
2½

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

ENTERTAINMENTS (EXCISE)

10. "That, as respects payments for admission to entertainments held on or after the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-three, other than payments made before the thirteenth day of April in that year, entertainments duty shall be charged—

(a) in the case of entertainments chargeable at reduced rates by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Finance Act, 1935, at the rates set out in Part I of the following Table;
(b) in the case of other entertainments at the rates set out in Part II of that Table.

TABLE.


PART I.


Reduced Rates.


Amount of Payment.
Rate of Duty.


Where the amount of the payment, excluding the amount of duty—
s.
d.


exceeds 3d. and does not exceed 11½d

½


exceeds 11½d. and does not exceed 1s. 3½d.

2½

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

PURCHASE TAX

11. "That the higher rate of purchase tax shall, in the case of tax becoming due on or after the thirteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-three, be one hundred per cent. of the wholesale value of the goods."

CHARGE OF TAX

12. "That—

(a) income tax for the year 1943–44 shall be charged at the standard rate of ten shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over one thousand five hundred pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;
(b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1942–43, other than such enactments as by their terms relate only to tax for that year, shall have effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1943–44.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOR 1942–43

13. "That income tax for the year 1942–43 shall be charged at rates exceeding the standard rate in the case of individuals whose total incomes exceed two thousand pounds, and those rates shall be rates in the pound which respectively exceed the standard rate for that year by the amounts specified in the second column of the Table in Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

SETTLEMENTS AND DISPOSITIONS

14 "That any Act of the present Session relating to finance may contain such declaratory or other provisions as Parliament may determine as to the effect of the provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to settlements or dispositions on settlements and dispositions where there is more than one settlor or party to the disposition."

EXCESS PROFITS TAX

15. "That the extent and incidence of Excess Profits Tax (for past and future chargeable accounting periods) shall be varied so as to give effect to amendments as to the computation of profits and provisions relating to cases where stock in trade of a company is disposed of otherwise than for at least its full market value."

ESTATE DUTY

16. "That the enactments relating to Estate Duty shall, in the case of persons dying after the twelfth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-three, be amended as respects the definition of the property which is to be treated as derived from the deceased for the purposes of Sections thirty and thirty-one of the Finance Act, 1939."

BEER (EXCISE)

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Tinker: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could very well have left this extra taxation out of account. This is an unbalanced Budget. The taxation represents, according to the Chancellor's figure, 56 per cent. of the total amount we have to raise, and therefore there can be no question of stabilisation. We have to get money from somewhere or other to balance the Budget, but we cannot get 100 per cent. from taxation. Why has he increased the taxation on a commodity which is already overtaxed? He could very well have left this tax off and either have borrowed money, with which I do not agree, or added so much more to the National Debt. It is very unwise at a moment like this to increase the tax on beer, because in many cases, although it is not an absolute necessity, beer goes a long way towards keeping the workmen in a good frame of mind. That is why I think it is unwise to put on this extra taxation.

Mr. David Adams: I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and to say that it is believed in the Durham coalfield that a mistake has been made in this particular by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He ought to have turned in other directions to find the money required, because his action is disturbing the equanimity and the good will which prevail at the present time in that basic industry. Those who know of the labours of the mining areas in particular agree that they are steeped in toil, and I think it can be affirmed that that applies generally to the working classes. In this case there are two sections of the community that are affected—the normal workers, and those with fixed incomes, such as pensioners and others, who have no relief and for whom there is no escape. If there had been some in-


crease in Income Tax, that class would have been permitted to escape, as they are the most necessitous in the community. I am satisfied that a very disturbing feature has been raised by this particular taxation. The consumption of beer, which in pre-war days could be looked upon as a luxury, has become a necessity owing to the restriction on entertainment, variety, change and travel. It is an additional taxation upon an urgent necessity, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought, if possible, to reconsider the position and not increase the tax on beer.

Mr. Benson: When one turns to the White Paper on the resources of the country and discovers that we are spending in the fourth year of the war £912,000,000 on alcohol and tobacco, I do not think that anybody can say that this country is being too heavily taxed. The mere fact that we can spend such enormous sums on what are luxuries—and I want to deny any idea that I am a teetotaller——

Sir Edward Campbell: Prove it.

Mr. Benson: I will, if the hon. Gentleman will meet me afterwards. The fact that we are spending such enormous sums shows that there is still a large amount of slack in our belt which can be taken up. It is not so much a question of balancing the Budget. Everybody knows that that is impossible. Refer to the White Paper and you see where the bulk of the spending power is and that spending power has to be reduced. We either have the option of increasing the incidence of Income Tax upon the lower incomes, or we have the alternative of putting indirect taxation upon them. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) suggested that this tax was likely to upset the equanimity of the coalfields, ml I can say is that the imposition of a tax upon wages produced a very great deal of friction, and I am not sure that that friction has already died down. It may be that direct taxation is something to which you have to get used over a period. We on this side of the House have always been in favour of direct taxation, but as far as the present war-time conditions are concerned, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very wise in avoiding direct taxation of lower incomes and putting it instead on indirect taxation,

though that does not apply to peace-time. It only applies to the very exceptional conditions, and I am very pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased the tax upon these obvious luxuries.

Sir Stanley Reed: I support the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). I have every sympathy with the aspect of the case presented by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Consett, (Mr. D. Adams), but I do not think that they should slightly mislead the House. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to do is not to raise the tax on beer, but to put a heavy tax upon water. If my information is correct, the amount of barley to be released for brewing is to be cut down by ten per cent. and the quantity of hop substitute by ten per cent., and the amount of beer to be brewed is as much as, if not greater than, it was before, But those who feel rather aggrieved at the duty have an excellent remedy in drinking water, although I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will encourage it. As night follows day, from the figures presented by the hon. Member for Chesterfield this of all commodities is the one on which the tax ought to be raised at the present time.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I do not think that I really need take up the time of the House in answering the observations of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams). I very much regret myself that beer has to be taxed. It is the easiest thing to go to one's constituency and say, "I opposed it," but if one looks at the merits of the situation, I think I can say that the whole of the country, and certainly the whole of the House, have been with me in this action. It was not a matter of desiring to tax the people; it was simply the alternative of taking this course or going in for direct taxation, which, in its turn, might bring many more difficulties to bear upon a large number of people. I have not taken up any hard and fast line on direct and indirect taxation. I have endeavoured to hold the balance between the two. I think that the whole of the country are with the Government, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with this House in agreeing that on the whole, in the circum-


stances in which we have to deal with the situation, this is a fair way of dealing with it. Anyone who does not want to pay this indirect taxation has, as I have explained before, to take only a simple course. It means giving up only a small quantity each week, and I suggest that the great majority of people will be prepared to take that course in the interests of the country at the present time.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second to Sixth Resolutions agreed to.

TOBACCO (CUSTOMS)

Seventh Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When this question of Tobacco Duties was before the Committee opinions were expressed from all parts of the Committee that the ordinary people of this country were quite prepared to pay these additional duties, but that at the same time there was a small section of the people with very limited means who would find them a very heavy burden. I rise now to make one suggestion to the Chancellor on this point. I believe that the people who are mostly concerned are old age pensioners, and it has been suggested to me that the right hon. Gentleman might find some way by which he could make a concession to old age pensioners without making it to anybody else. It has been suggested that he might enable an old age pensioner, on the production of his personal ration book, which refers to sweets—not in the alcoholic sense, but in the ordinary sense—together with his old age pension book to purchase cigarettes or tobacco at lower prices or at prices not increased by these duties. I do not expect the Chancellor to give a considered answer at the moment, but when he is thinking of the possibility of some means of relieving the burdens of those with slender incomes, perhaps he will give some consideration to this point to see whether it can possibly be carried out.

Mr. Lipson: I rise to support the plea which has just been made to the Chancellor. The great majority of smokers accept this part of

the Budget proposals willingly and cheerfully, but there is a small section for whom it means unreasonable hardship, and I would ask the Chancellor to consider whether he cannot meet this hardship. The only criticisms of the Budget I have heard in my constituency has been about the way the increased Tobacco Duties will affect old age pensioners. The Chancellor has told us how the tax could be evaded, but obviously if all smokers were to follow his example, he would not get the £57,000,000 increase he has anticipated from tobacco sales this year, and, therefore, it must be on the assumption that the duties will continue to be paid by the great majority of smokers that the taxation has been imposed. The only class of the community who will have to follow his advice will be the old age pensioners. It was suggested that they can avoid the increased tax by cutting down one pipe in six, but may I remind my right hon. Friend that the old age pensioners have already done considerable cutting down? As a result of the increased duties, the cheapest pipe tobacco that can be bought to-day costs 2s. 3d. per ounce. Before the war this same tobacco cost 8d. an ounce, and this progressive increase has hit the old age pensioners very hard.
The House has, I think, to look at what the old age pensioner receives by way of income, how much pipe tobacco he can afford at 2s. 3d. per ounce and how much cutting down he can be asked to make in addition to what he has already made. The Chancellor has already recognised the principle that one section of the community cannot afford to pay the increased duties, namely, the men and women in the Fighting Services, and he has found a way of relieving them from the increase of this year and last year. I put it to him that the need of the old age pensioner for similar relief is just as great. Will he tell us what the loss of revenue would amount to if he met the case of the old age pensioner in the way it has been suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)? If it is said that the sacrifices these people are asked to make are small compared with those being made by people in other countries at the present time, I answer that our old age pensioners have already shown their willingness throughout the war to accept sacrifices, especially where they have been living in areas exposed to


enemy attack. You are imposing upon them a sacrifice which, at very little cost to the Exchequer, could be avoided. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor to give this matter further consideration to see if he can find some way out.

Mr. Tinker: My view is that there was no need to put on this increased tax this time. When something is already heavily taxed it seems unwise to put on still further taxation. The Budget Statement calls for £5,756,000,000, out of which we have to find by taxation £2,900,000,000, so that a mere matter of £58,000,000 does not seem worthy of consideration. If it was a case of balancing the Budget, I would say, "Yes, something must be taxed," but when it is not a case of balancing the Budget, I say that it is unwise to put on this extra taxation. There have been pleas for some concession to be made to the old age pensioners. I know the Chancellor will reply that it is difficult to find a way out, and I can agree with him. The only way to deal with old age pensioners is to give them equal opportunities with others by increasing the basic rate of their pension, not by playing about with some concession here and there.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman cannot take that line of argument now.

Mr. Tinker: No, Sir, perhaps not. In my enthusiasm I was, perhaps, exceeding what I ought to have said, but, nevertheless, there is no other way of meeting this difficulty, except in that way. The Chancellor, I repeat, should have left the Tobacco Duties alone this time.

Mr. Granville: I would like briefly to add my support to the pleas made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) to the Chancellor to give us a favourable answer to this question of some revision of these increased taxes for old age pensioners. Tobacco is one of their enjoyments. Many humourists think the Chancellor is an artful dodger or has a very hard heart; I think he is a remarkable exponent of the difficult art of getting away with it. I believe, however, that he has some feeling about this matter and that really underneath he has a soft heart, and I hope that to-day he will not give us a brief and

cursory answer, but an answer which will represent the considered view of the Government. There are members of the Labour Party in the Government, and I imagine that if the right hon. Gentleman turns down this plea this question has been considered by those Labour Members in the Government and by the Government as a whole. May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? We are asked to appeal at "Wings for Victory" Weeks and War Savings Weeks to those who include the old people to invest their savings in Government securities, then the Government come along with this astronomical Budget, and it makes the position of the old people very difficult, especially if they happen to live in an area where enormous Government contracts on camps and buildings and where aerodromes are being built and where high wages are being paid to Irish and other labour. They say, "Are our savings going into this extravagance?" They see enormous expenditure by the Government on aerodromes, hospitals and the like, and they say, "There is all money being spent. Surely the Government can make some concession to us." It has been said that the Chancellor killed the Beveridge Report. I do not know whether that is true or not; but this I do feel, that many old people will never live to see or enjoy the benefits of some of the reforms that have been promised by the Government.
For once I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) when he says that the best way of dealing with this question is to wait for the increase of the basic rate of pension. We have been promised that by the Government for a long time. The old people may be tired of waiting. I do not know whether they are going to get it or not, but I hope the Chancellor will give us some hint to-day. I hope he will not say, "I have been considering this matter, and I hope to make a statement on some future occasion." I am one of those who say about this, "Give us something now for the old people." The right hon. Gentleman, I know, has to face his national Budget, but these people have their own domestic budgets, too. I believe it was John Bright who said:
The nation dwells in the cottage.
If the light of your constitution fails to shine in the homes of the poor and lonely


as well as the mansions of the rich, believe me you have yet to learn the first duty of Government. I ask the Chancellor to consider the budgets which the old age pensioners have to balance after the full effect of his Budget has been brought home to them. I ask the Chancellor to say something that will bring comfort and hope into thousands of homes of old age pensioners in facing these difficult days of war.

Sir K. Wood: I am grateful to hon. Members for the observations they have made on the subject of my personal inclinations. I think I may claim that all hon. Members are concerned with the lot of old age pensioners. We all have enthusiasm for those people, many of whom, undoubtedly, towards the end of their days, have to face difficult circumstances and difficult times. I would not admit that the lot of the old age pensioners is the particular concern of any section of the House; it is a matter for all of us and for the Government.
I want to say a few words on this matter, which is the only matter about which any controversy has arisen in connection with the Budget. I contend that the position of old age pensioners and others in a like category has not been overlooked by the Government in connection with the Budget. I want, first, to address myself to the suggestion that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) that by some device or other, such as holding a coupon or producing a ration book, some arrangement could be made for old age pensioners to secure tobacco and, I suppose, if one follows the contention of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), beer, at a cheaper rate. I want now to deal simply with the merits of that proposal and to consider the feasibility of such a scheme in itself, before coming to my general argument on the matter. In doing so I will also assume that none of the people concerned desires to make any curtailment in his or her consumption, but prefers to go on smoking as before. In the first place, one could not confine such a scheme to old age pensioners alone. In introducing a scheme of that kind, to be fair, one would have to bring in a number of other people who have to live on small fixed incomes and who are in very much the same position as the old

age pensioners. No doubt these people would claim equal consideration. Many of them perhaps have more responsibilities than the old age pensioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), who always speaks with sincerity, referred to the precedent of the Services. The reason I made, with the general approval of the House, the alteration and differentiation in regard to the Services is simply that, of course, the general remuneration in the Forces consists to a very large extent of provision in kind; and secondly, it is possible in the Forces, as we have seen during the last 12 months, for arrangements to be made through the Service canteens and by other similar means to provide an exact quota of cigarettes and tobacco at a preferential price. Through a system of that kind we are able to avoid at any rate a considerable possibility of abuse. I have not had any cases of abuse brought to my notice, and to the best of my knowledge and belief the whole of the arrangements for the allocation and distribution of supplies can be properly controlled by the administrative authorities. It would be a different matter altogether, from a practical point of view, to introduce any scheme of that kind for old age pensioners, among whom a very large proportion are non-smokers. There would be considerable possibilities of black markets if we were to give an entitlement to a fixed quantity of cigarettes or tobacco at a special preferential price to all old age pensioners of either sex and to smokers and non-smokers alike.
Another fact that has to be taken into account in this matter is that if tobacco and cigarettes were selling at two different prices in the shops, it would cause great complications and difficulties to the tobacconists, who have to buy all their supplies at duty-paid prices and who would have to render accounts of the quantities sold at the lower price. This would involve, for a very small matter indeed, the setting up of a new machinery of administrative control which could not fail to be costly and wasteful of manpower at the very time when we are bending all our efforts to cutting out the unnecessary use of labour and administrative machinery so as to allow the maximum amount of man-power for the direct war effort. To my mind, and as I think will be agreed by most people who have examined the matter, when one attempts


to set up such a scheme, it presents very considerable administrative difficulties.
I come now to the merits of the whole matter. I would like the House to hear this statement and the people in the country to read it. What is, in fact, the position, and what is proposed when hon. Gentlemen get up in the House and say that the concession with regard to tobacco and cigarettes ought to be given to old age pensioners? What is the position as far as the old age pensioners are concerned? There are about 3,800,000 old age pensioners of all kinds at the present time, including widows over 60, and of those 3,800,000, some 1,400,000 are in receipt of supplementary pensions; that is to say, their circumstances are such that they have made application for and received supplementary assistance in addition to their basic pensions. Is it proposed that the remaining 2,400,000 who have not applied should be granted a special budgetary concession in preference to other sections of the community? Is it suggested that some 750,000 old age pensioners who are at present employed should be given this special concession? That is an impossible proposition to put forward. Is it suggested that all those contributory pensioners who are not drawing supplementary pensions, to the number of over 2,000,000, who are paid their pensions quite irrespective of their other resources, people from all walks of life, people in business on their own account, or people who have in other ways made provision for themselves, should receive this special concession? One has only to put those two questions to see the futility of a proposal of that kind and its unfairness to other members of the community.
What, in fact, is the true position in this matter? In the Budget Debates last week, I stated what the increases on tobacco and beer would mean in terms of reduced consumption, and I explained how, if people did not want to pay the new tax bill, they could avoid it. I want now to put the matter in another way. Assuming that consumption remains the same and the increased prices are paid, an extra 4½d. an ounce on tobacco, on, say, two ounces a week, would be 9d. a week extra, and as regards beer, if the consumer drinks a pint a day, the extra tax would be 7d. a week. Is it suggested that for those very small increases I should set up an extra piece of administrative machinery involving great difficulties and

the use of man-power that ought to be used for other things? Is it suggested that, in respect of the 750,000 old age pensioners who are now at work, this is an unfair or hard imposition? Is it suggested that, as regards the 2,000,000 pensioners who have their pension irrespective of their means, people from all walks of life, bank managers and others, as I know, this is an unfair imposition?
The only case that can be made is when one reduces the category of old age pensioners by subtracting these very large figures, and thus gets down to what one may call the old age pensioners proper, if one may use such a term. In their case, I say that, as Chancellor, I have given very considerable thought and care to their position and that of others in the same category. It is not fair or right to pick out one item from the Budget without looking at the other provisions that are being made in an endeavour, as I believe, to assist far more considerably the old people concerned. During the last 12 months there have been, and during the next 12 months there will be, far greater benefit to the old age pensioners and persons in that category through the provisions of the Budget, particularly the stabilisation policy and the direct increases in supplementary pensions which I have had to provide, than there would be in any small concession on tobacco and cigarettes. If hon. Members will look fairly at the balance sheet, taking both sides, I think they will agree that we have not been unmindful of the position of the old age pensioners. Due provision has been made to meet the circumstances of people with small incomes. If one totals up on both sides of the account the considerable benefit these people will receive from the extra sum for supplementary pensions which I have had to provide and from the further provision we are making in connection with the stabilisation policy, which was never dreamt of in the last war, and if one thinks of what I am doing with regard to the Purchase Tax, then I think any fair person will say that due and proper provision has been made for the old people. If one had to assess where they stand, I would say that they benefit by this Budget. I do not think one need feel anxiety in relation to the position of old age pensioners. Due regard has been paid during the last year to the position of people in that walk of life, whom we should all desire to


assist, and, so far from the Budget bringing any additional hardship or difficulties on them, the reverse is the case and they are benefiting by the provisions that have been made.

Mr. David Adams: We are very grateful to the Chancellor for the extended statement that he has made, and it will certainly relieve a good deal of perturbation in certain circles, particularly those connected with the question of old age pensioners. I have had sent to me a resolution which refers to the Chancellor's lack of consideration in the matter of the Tobacco Duty and says that there ought to be alternatively an increase in the basic rate of pension to meet these new impositions in order that the old age pensioner may play his part in the matter of bearing taxation. It is not that the pensioner is desirous of escaping all taxation—I have not found that view expressed—but that his position ought to be so reinforced and improved that he will be able to play his part properly. I am, nevertheless, opposed to this Tobacco Duty, and I still feel that he has taken a wrong step. It is an indirect tax where the burden is already excessive, and I dispute the statement that smoking, or even the drinking of beer, is a luxury. It has become a prime necessity. You permit industrial workers to have certain relaxations when almost all others are taken from them, and they then become not merely relaxations but positive necessities, such as tobacco and beer. You are making the position as far as beer and tobacco are concerned intolerable, for, whether you dispute it or not, it creates a sense of resentment, particularly as there are other directions to which the Chancellor might have turned. He has power in his hand to impose a direct tax on ground values. An increase in indirect taxation is a burden upon particular sections of the community.

Mr. Kirkwood: The illuminating statement that the Chancellor has just made bears out what I said last week, that before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was a lawyer. He was trying to convince the House—he almost convinced me—that black was white and that, instead of this being harsh on old age pensioners, they were getting a rise in their wages. The tragedy of it is that he almost convinced himself. Our difficulty,

not only in this but in many other instances, is to try to get Members to place themselves in the position of those who are affected by this tax. It is the old age pensioner that we are appealing for. The right hon. Gentleman said they were only going to lose one pipeful out of six. If it was one out of 106, it would not be very much, but one out of six is a severe tax on these people. It is nonsense to talk to us as the right hon. Gentleman did. We are not appealing for bank managers and retired lawyers. We are putting forward a genuine grievance of the veterans of industry. Particularly are we appealing for those who have nothing but their pension coming in. The right hon. Gentleman says he has augmented it. That is an admission that the pension is not sufficient. If the augmentation is a charity, he is putting a tax on the charity.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman was here. I do not know why he went away. We allowed him to rise just because he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We never expected that he was going to walk away, or he would not have got away so easily. He says that a concession was made to the Forces. Why? Because they are young men. Manhood's active might can support its right. But the grandfathers of the present generation, the men who have made this Empire possible, we are treating in this way instead of being generous, as we could afford to be generous to them. No power on earth was ever in such a glorious position as the Government of this country, but they go on with their cheeseparing methods of handling our veterans of industry. I wish the legal profession would turn their mind, which has been trained to dissect and bisect words and understand their meaning, to defending the poorest of the poor, but all their ability is displayed to try to make out that the old age pensioner is not being savagely dealt with. Think of a man having worked down the pit for 50 years. It is difficult nowadays to get the young fellows to go to the job at all. These men have worked night and day all their lives, and at the end of it they are treated in this fashion, as though we were up against it and had not the means. We have the means. We could afford to give them 30s. a week. I want the Chancellor to understand that he did not carry me away because we are up against facts and
Facts are chiels that winna ding
And daurna be disputed.

Mr. Muff: We have had nine or 10 days to reflect upon the Budget speech and proposals, and the more I consider some of these Resolutions, the more I am inclined to think that the garlands that were placed round the Chancellor's neck, and the many bouquets which were so gratuitously offered to him, might now be replaced by a few bricks, or at any rate brickbats. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury last week quoted something that Polonius said about keeping mouths shut. I do not know the quotation—I do not pretend to know Shakespeare—but I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was born in Yorkshire. I can give the Secretary to the Treasury a revised version of Shakespeare. What the Chancellor did was to hear all and say "nowt" and take all and pay "nowt." I will not finish the quotation, but leave it to the imagination. We are discussing what is a great hardship to a section of the community. I was speaking to a number of navvies building an aerodrome on Friday, and there was not a grouse about the extra tax on tobacco from these able-bodied men earning fairly reasonable wages. They also accepted with good humour the imposition placed upon those who prefer alcoholic liquor. I cannot compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in the appeal he made. I found that these able-bodied men were concerned about the burden which was placed upon those who are aged and poor. I reinforce the arguments which have been used about these burdens being placed on those least able to bear them. If we do not get what we ask for we are ready to persevere and we expect the Financial Secretary to convey to the Chancellor that we are ready to organise a stay-in strike in this Chamber in support of our appeal. If we do not get what we are asking the Chancellor will have a few bricks instead of bouquets thrown at him.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to identity myself with the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). From my youth upwards I have always been a smoker and have smoked the cheapest tobacco but the best. The impost that has been put on tobacco during the past few years is indicative of the method by which those

who represent the ruling-class forces of this country have sought more and more to place the heavy burden of maintaining the country on the backs of the masses of the people. In the treatment of old age pensioners it is almost unbelievable that the Chancellor and his supporters on the other side could be so devoid of the bowels of compassion. There is not a thought for the old folk. We find in the propaganda that is carried on on behalf of the Government and the successful prosecution of the war a flaunting of the austerity which they are forcing upon the old folk. Time and time again, if old age pensioners are able to get a cheap seat in a cheap cinema, they will be presented with a picture of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Resolution before the House.

Mr. Gallacher: I am on tobacco. We cannot dissociate the Prime Minister from tobacco, for when his picture appears, tobacco is the first thing the old age pensioners will see. They cannot afford to smoke, but they are presented with a delightful picture of a pleased looking gentleman with a nice long cigar blowing out smoke right in their faces. Then they realise that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are responsible for making them do without tobacco. They are to do without one pipe in six. Many of them have to make one pipeful last a day, a draw now and a draw again, yet the Chancellor and those who support him say that it is no sacrifice to do without smoking on one day out of six. They are told that it is necessary in order to raise the money. It is not necessary. It is a deliberate impost on the masses of the working-class people, and it naturally spreads over to the old age pensioners. I know it is pretty hopeless making an appeal to the Chancellor and the hard-faced gentlemen who support him. They will sacrifice anybody, and particularly the old folk, in order to ensure economies that will defend their own privileges and property. The old age pensioners now have to pay 2s. 4½d. for an ounce of black twist. I know those who smoke regularly for seven days a week and who go through a matter of five ounces. No old age pensioner could afford that. The whole of the old age pension would have


to go to get that. Old age pensioners are in most cases in a position where they are only able to buy one ounce a week.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs made clear what should be clear to everybody, that it is these old folk who have prepared the way for us and made it possible for anything that is good in this country to exist, because everything, every "great" man or institution, depends for his or its existence on the labour of the toiling masses. The old age pensioners represent those who have made this country and this Empire possible. Now they are to be denied the comfort of tobacco in the declining years of their lives. It is hopeless to appeal to the Chancellor, but I would appeal to those closely associated with him, especially the Financial Secretary. He is not so old yet and is still able to pass round the cigarette case or maybe a box of cigars. I understand that they are still being passed round at dinners and other suchlike functions. There is no question of the old age pensioner being able to pass round tobacco. In the years to come we may make many changes, and some of the lads who are up may be down and some who are down may be up. The Financial Secretary should look ahead; he may be one of those who will get the knock. He should be prepared to ensure that old age pensioners get a smoke now. If he does, he may be paving the way for an easier time for himself.

Mr. Viant: I feel that a further appeal should be made to the Chancellor to consider the position of the old age pensioners. It does not affect me for I am not accustomed to smoking. Since the Budget was introduced I have been able to get among my constituents and I have learned that the main body of men and women appreciate that the Chancellor has to obtain the money for the conduct of the war somewhere and somehow. The average man and woman are quite prepared to pay, but they show keen sympathy for the old man who has been accustomed to his pipe. We had hoped, in view of the appeals that have been made, that the Chancellor would have been prepared to announce some concession for old age pensioners. I feel that as a House of Commons we are somewhat lacking in imagination, if not in sympathy, in this respect; otherwise, we

should bring united pressure to bear upon the Chancellor to deal with the case of our old age pensioners. Most of us are agreed that old age pensioners are not receiving sufficient to enable them to live the life we should like them to live, and having admitted that it is grossly unfair to allow a further inroad upon their already far too small incomes. I reinforce the appeal to the Chancellor to explore this question further to see whether some small concession cannot be made. These old folk have given of their best to the country. We are showing our appreciation of the men and women in the Services in this regard and can we not go further and show our appreciation of the old age pensioners by making them a concession?

Question, "That this House doth agree with the. Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Eighth and Ninth Resolutions agreed to.

ENTERTAINMENTS (EXCISE)

Tenth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Buchanan: I wish to raise a point which interests a number of people who feel that in the matter of the Entertainments Duty they ought to receive somewhat different treatment from that which they are getting. I refer to those who follow pastimes like football and cricket. They feel that these pastimes ought to be treated on something like the same lines as the Chancellor deals with what is called "the living theatre." Those who conduct our ordinary sports, like football and cricket, which fulfil a very useful function in our life, are finding it very difficult to carry on. Most of them only succeed in doing so because to a large extent the on-cost charges, wages, etc., have been reduced considerably. Large numbers of them, particularly in various parts of Scotland, are finding it difficult to continue operations with the Entertainments Duty as it is. I would ask the Chancellor to consider particularly cases where the entertainment is somewhat analogous to that of the living theatre. Occasionally very great crowds are attracted to matches, but in the main the crowds are comparatively small. I understand that representations have


already been made to the Chancellor and I would ask him to reconsider this question.

Mr. George Griffiths: I wish to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Some of us understand a little bit about football. I was never really a professional, but I was a fairly good professional shouter when my team was winning, and I am satisfied that at the present time football matches do meet a great need. All the first division, second division and third division clubs are mulched together. The Attorney-General knows that sometimes Everton play Wrexham and Chester play Liverpool. These matches give a great deal of enjoyment to thousands of those who are working hard in the pits and munition factories and in other industries. These people like to have the Saturday afternoon off. There are not the old travelling facilities allowing people to go from Wrexham to Liverpool or from Sheffield to Leeds or from Sheffield to Birmingham, and the games do not attract the big crowds that used to assemble, and since this additional tax has been put on football clubs are very much disturbed and fear that they will not be able to carry on next season. The season finishes this year on either 8th May or 15th May, and there are certain clubs which are in financial difficulties now and will not be able to go forward if this additional tax is imposed.
I should also like to say a word for the professional footballer. He has sacrificed a lot in wages since the war. Now he gets a paltry 30s. a match. He used to get £8 a week. He may be in some other employment now, but he still carries on with football during the week-end. He has made sacrifices to give spectators the pleasure of seeing matches. I went one day with the chairman of the Arsenal Club—he is one of the Members for Northern Ireland—to a match on the Arsenal ground. I enjoyed every minute of it, and all the others who go enjoy these matches. If these clubs have to close down next season I would remind the Chancellor that his revenue from the Entertainments Duty will go down. He may reply that if the Entertainments Duty goes down then the tax on alcoholic beverages will go up, but I would rather see 10,000 men watching a football match on a Saturday afternoon than see 1,000

men taking alcoholic beverages. That is where I stand. I do ask the Chancellor to consider the position of professional football clubs, in order to save them from closing down and thus depriving the workers of a good Saturday afternoon's sport.

Mr. Benson: I think the division now drawn between the living stage and the non-living stage does not really represent what our attitude towards the stage should be. Before the war, when the living stage was having a very difficult fight with the cinemas, there was, no doubt, some reason for a differentiation between the living and the non-living stage, but nowadays any form of show, apparently, is highly profitable and that differentiation is not quite so important. There is a differentiation, however, which is still important but which depends rather on the quality and the type of the production than on whether actors or celluloid are the source of the pleasure. In this country we are very far behind the Continent in the matter of really first-class productions of opera and the classical drama. Before the war, at any rate, there were some good things in Germany. In practically every small town throughout the length and breadth of Germany the people were familiar with good music and with opera. Almost every small town had its own opera house and opera company. In England we have perhaps one or two touring companies fighting hard for an existence and quite unable to give productions on anything like the scale of those on the Continent. We find opera companies visiting towns like Manchester not more than once in 12 months. I do not know why certain forms of art should be subsidised and subsidised heavily, but practically every town in this country has a municipal art gallery, which is there to provide good pictures free for those who are interested in pictures. There is no reason why we should restrict our subsidies or our communal help to one form of art alone. I know this is rather a dangerous argument, but why should not the Chancellor take this opportunity, when Budgets have not to be balanced, to be a little generous? I think there ought to be a possibility of subsidising the more difficult forms of dramatic art—using the word "difficult" from the box office point of view. I hope the Chancellor will consider the possibility of granting some


concession resting not on the question of whether it is living art or not but on the basis of the quality and type of the production.

Mr. Granville: I should like to reinforce the appeal made to the Chancellor by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to consider the case of professional football clubs. I believe they are in a very difficult way. Sometimes it is extremely difficult for them to get a team together; often they have to rely on getting a member of the Services at the last minute on the Saturday. Although the first, second and third divisions of the League have been abolished, these clubs are still in an extremely difficult way, yet they do afford a great deal of enjoyment to a large number of people. I am not thinking of the cup finals at Wembley, which are attended by Cabinet Ministers and the rest and are very big functions. I am thinking of the ordinary struggling professional teams which are trying to provide entertainment for men on leave from the Services and for munition workers on their Saturday afternoons. "Soccer" is one of our great national institutions, and though I shall not go into the merits of "Soccer" against "Rugger" or the Northern Union game, I hope the Chancellor will give some consideration to this important section of our national pastimes and see whether he cannot save some of the smaller professional clubs from going out of business altogether.

Mr. Messer: I want to refer to one aspect of the Entertainments Duty in which the Chancellor might consider its effect upon very valuable work being done among our young people, in the development of amateur dramatic societies. There is an immense amount of expense and labour involved in that work and tremendous difficulty in getting money with which to meet the expense. An amateur dramatic association can only be kept in existence if its members know that their show is to be put on publicly. It is not sufficient inducement for them to go to all the trouble of rehearsals, etc., if there is not to be a public show. The show cannot be put on for a period, but usually only for one or two evenings, and if there are footlights at all, they are usually just fixed up for the purpose. When it comes to getting an audience, obviously the amateurs cannot compete with the professional

shows. If the admission prices are too high they will compete with the professional shows, and the amateurs will not get an audience.
Because of those difficulties we do not get more of such shows. Some secondary school children who have helped to put on shows at school and have discovered that they have some measure of histrionic ability have been able to develop their powers of expression and would like to continue it after leaving school, but they often find the thing is far too expensive and difficult. The same is often true of church entertainments. These efforts may flourish for a time, but many of them soon die. It is my opinion that we are losing a very valuable addition to the education of the people. I think it is possible for us to reach a higher degree of culture. I believe the pleasure of life to be very largely found in culture. It is not what you do that matters in life, but the way in which you do it. The characteristics of the British people lend themselves to this very valuable asset of being able to enjoy each other's work. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can consider, in view of the fact that he gets so little out of the Entertainments Duty from these amateur societies, that he would be making a contribution to the national good by relieving them of the tax, and would be giving an inducement to people to continue to develop this very valuable activity.
I do not want to touch on the question, which has been so widely discussed, of juvenile delinquency and the activity that will be required to deal with it, but I do say that young people need something to occupy their minds. They want an interest. The interest which is of most value is that which they have as a result of their ability to express their desires. And because I believe there is educational value in the encouragement of the drama and of the appreciation of good music—not merely being able to appreciate good acting, but being able to take part in it—I believe there is a very valuable educational factor involved. I take this opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the Chancellor, because, speaking in broad terms, I believe he would get his money's worth in the benefit given to the people concerned, by letting these amateur shows be relieved of Entertainments Duty, if they proved that they were not run for profit.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I rise to support my hon. Friend in the plea that he has just made. I believe that the expense to the Treasury in granting this concession would be trifling, but the benefit of encouraging amateur performances would be immense. There is such a danger today that the amusements of people of all classes tend to be passive, while this is a creative type of recreation. Those engaged in amateur dramatics are actively exercising some of the finest faculties of their minds, and that ought to be encouraged in every way. It would not be right for us to make a plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at such a time if it involved considerable expense or serious loss to the Revenue, but if the safeguards provided that no profit should be made out of the amateur performances, there would be no possibility of serious leakage in the Revenue and very definite encouragement would be given to a form of recreation of the greatest educational value. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give very serious and sympathetic consideration to the pleas that have been made.

Sir K. Wood: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for the Eye division (Mr. Granville) has left us, because I have been very interested in his activity to-day. He has had a regular field day. He was in favour of no further taxation for old age pensioners; I think he would like to see everything go, so far as beer is concerned; and now he is coming forward on behalf of the footballers. He will be able to go back to his division on Saturday and say that he has really done everything he possibly can for everybody in his division. If I followed his advice, he would leave me very little out of my Budget. I can give some assurances to my two hon. Friends who have just mentioned amateur theatrical societies, because if such bodies form themselves, as I think a very large number of them do, into non-profit-making associations, they come within the provisions which have already been made regarding Entertainments Duty. My hon. Friend on these Government Benches asked me to inquire into the operation of the relief which has been given to these and similar undertakings, because he thinks there is some abuse, but the fact remains that they do get assistance and relief from present taxation which we are all glad to see. I

share very largely the views that have been stated by my hon. Friends.
I do not think I need defend very much the further preference that I have given in this Budget to the living theatre. It is true, especially here in London, that the theatres are doing very well indeed, and I am very glad they are. I believe in a measure of recreation at this time. People cannot be always thinking about the war—it would be very bad if they did—and I am glad the theatres are doing well. It has been represented to me, however, that that does not apply equally in all parts of the country, and there may be a number of repertory theatres and undertakings of that kind which will appreciate the difference that has been made in this Budget in the imposition of the extra taxes. The feeling of myself and a number of my colleagues is that I should, if possible, endeavour to emphasise the encouragement that we desire to give to what is called the living theatre. I also appreciate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on behalf of footballers. It is a good line. Of course, I receive representations equally from those who believe in other kinds of pleasures, but it is not for me, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to come down on the side of one particular recreation or another. I may like greyhound racing. As a matter of fact I have not yet had the pleasure of going to a greyhound race meeting, which I hope yet to do. Others like boxing matches, and I suppose the favourite kind of recreation of others would be horse racing. So I could go on. I am afraid I am not in a position to differentiate in these matters, and I am adhering in this Budget to the same provisions as in the last Budget.
I do not pretend to have examined the matter in detail, but I do not think that the imposition of the tax in this Budget upon entertainments of that character really makes any difference between success and failure. As a matter of fact, if you examine the provision which I have made for the taxation of entertainments it will be seen to be not a very heavy one. I have endeavoured to gather what I could to get the £100,000,000 required, but if hon. Members will examine the contribution that has been made by entertainments generally, they will see that it is not of a very large order when you divide it up among the various undertakings. I would


not regard it as a serious imposition, and I have not received any criticism of that kind. It is fair that I should tell the House that the people who are responsible for the major entertainments of the country, such as cinemas and theatres, met me, as I would expect them to do, and have been desirous of meeting my wishes in this matter, on behalf of the House of Commons, so far as they can, by making a further contribution in the present difficult circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that in present circumstances I cannot pick and choose. I hope that the whole House will regard the imposition of taxation upon entertainments as not done in the kill-joy spirit or anything of that kind. Everybody has his own form of relaxation, and I am very glad of it. It is impossible for me to make a distinction between one kind of entertainment and another.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is it not reasonably true that most of the amateur dramatic societies obtain exemption certificates before they even contemplate putting on a show and that, consequently, probably less than 10 per cent. of the amateur dramatic societies are run with any intention of making any profit at all?

Sir K. Wood: That is so.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

PURCHASE TAX

Eleventh Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Hannah: I have received a letter from the director and secretary of the National Buildings Record, whose headquarters are "All Souls College, Oxford," about a small point connected with the Budget which I cannot help thinking is accidental. Most properly the Chancellor has raised the Purchase Tax to 100 per cent. in order to prevent the purchase of luxuries, which we must learn to do without during the war. Unfortunately, apparently this tax, as at present arranged, applies to the photo films and paper required by the National

Buildings Record and may prevent their work, very often, altogether. We all know the splendid work they are doing in recording, by plans, elevations, sections and photographs, the monuments of our past. They may be useful in the restoration of those buildings if they are bombed. If they are past restoration, they will be of enormous value in connection with the history of our architecture and art. I want very strongly indeed to ask for a careful and sympathetic examination. The National Buildings Record, in a very English way, is financed by the Government, but it is not allowed the privileges, prestige and exemptions of being a Government Department. I do not think there is any doubt that this is entirely unintentional, and I ask for careful consideration. At the same time I hope the old age pensioners will be given some help.

Sir K. Wood: I do not quite follow how the last of my hon. Friend's observations come into this question of photography and matters of that kind, but I know his heart is good, and I am sure his constituency will appreciate it. I will examine this case he has raised. I rather gathered from what the hon. Member said that this organisation was financed by the Government. If so, then I do not think it will suffer very much, because apparently the Government will have to pay the extra tax. I have, in fact, followed in this connection the same procedure as in my last Budget. All those articles which were affected when I increased the tax to 66–2/3rds. per cent. are the same articles which will be subject to 100 per cent. tax. I have not heard anything about this matter so far as last year is concerned, but I will inquire into the point and communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hannah: Thank you very much. I understand that the Government help to the National Buildings Record is strictly limited. They do not provide all it would like.

Sir K. Wood: I am very glad to hear that.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

CHARGE OF TAX

Twelfth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: There are one or two points in the matter of Income Tax to which I would like to make reference to direct the attention of the Chancellor to them. Since we had our Debate on the Committee stage I have had a good deal of correspondence from people on several points I raised, and on several others. I propose to tell the Chancellor what has been represented to me. In the first place, it has been suggested, not, so far as I can see, on any reliable authority, that in respect of many persons who are in the habit of receiving a good deal of their income in cash there may be at any rate a certain amount of leakage. I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deny that that may be the case. I only want to ask whether he is satisfied that his officials are doing all they can to make that leakage as small as possible. The Chancellor will understand the class of people to whom I am referring, people who are in the habit of having fees in cash, sometimes people taking money over the counter in cash. All those people are subjected to the temptation of pocketing their money and spending out of that pocket without ever accounting for it in any way which would render it liable to Income Tax. I should like to be satisfied, and should like to know whether the Chancellor is satisfied, that everything possible is being done to keep that evasion down to the smallest possible limit.
Another point refers to the time of payments. The first point that I made in the course of my speech the other day during the Committee stage was that the payment of Income Tax after a period of time, sometimes over 12 months, is bound to lead to great difficulties in the future when the ordinary workman retires from work. I know the attitude the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes towards that matter. He is inclined to say that when the time comes no doubt we can consider where we stand. That no doubt is an answer up to a certain extent, but what I would present to him to-day is what I have been told, that is, that this matter of what will happen when working life comes to an end is already causing a considerable amount of worry and anxiety to the most conscientious people in the community.
It may be that there are feckless people who say, "Live one day at a time. When I have spent all my money and no more wages are coming in, the Chancellor cannot get blood out of a stone." But the most reliable and responsible people who are doing their best to play straight by the nation are the people most affected. They see their powers ebbing away and that the day is not far off when they will have no income, and they are anxious and worried as to what their future will be when their earning life ends and they are at that time in debt to the Treasury, to what is to them quite a considerable extent. Therefore, though I am not asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do anything about the matter in this Budget, that is an added reason why he should consider a change of the nature of the tax, which I think will have to be very comprehensive when it comes.
Further to that matter of the pay-as-you-earn principle, I have had some correspondence over temporary civil servants. Their position, as I think the Chancellor already knows, is an exceedingly difficult one, because in their previous avocation they have been paying tax a year after the event, and when they become temporary civil servants they find their tax being demanded from them for the current year, and so are in the position of being called upon to pay two taxes in one year, sometimes, I gather, even three. The result is very disastrous to them and places them in an exceedingly awkward position. Further, they may, owing to patriotism, have very well reduced their income by taking up work as temporary civil servants. Therefore, with a reduced income they are subjected to double, and sometimes more than double, tax in the course of a single year. It may be answered to them that in those circumstances the Inland Revenue will not press them very hard, and that they can postpone their payment until later on.
I understand that some of them do not feel that that entirely meets their case. Therefore I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will—and I think as the years go on it will be increasingly necessary for him to do so—reconsider this question of the date of payment of taxation, because when taxation was only 1s. or 2s. in the £ it was not a very big matter anyway, but when taxation begins to reach the dimensions which it certainly does reach at the present time, for those


people who have no capital but who are really dependent on their income it becomes a very serious matter.
The last question I want to refer to is one which has brought me a good deal of correspondence, that is, what I have said during the Committee stage with regard to cripples. It has been pointed out to me—the Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt say "repercussions"—that cripples do not stand alone. There are also other people who have, in consequence of some form of disability, to provide themselves with artificial aids, and the most important of this class are the deaf. A deaf persons needs for his or her ordinary life an instrument that costs not merely an original sum but costs a considerable amount in upkeep. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way—and I am not suggesting it for this year in any case—to allow a person who is not in active work any allowance on account of an instrument, whether it is for hearing or anything else. But a great many of these people are earning their livings, and out of the money they earn they are paying Income Tax, and they claim, with what seems to me to be an indisputable right, that these instruments which they are forced to use are necessary in order that their living may be earned, that in fact without them they would be quite unable to obtain any income at all. Therefore, as I have said before, if a workman is entitled to deduct for his tools which are necessary for him to carry out his job, so in the case of a typist who may have a hearing instrument in order to do her work and earn her income which yields its tax to the Revenue, I do think there is quite a strong case which the Chancellor might consider for another year. The very fact that the tax is now at such a high figure makes this all the more necessary. That is why I do not think it is an answer to say that this must wait until better days. It is because the tax is so high that these considerations become of special importance. I am sure the Chancellor will be reasonable and give this his full consideration. I have received quite a number of letters on this point, and I have thought it desirable to add to what I said last week some points which have been brought to my attention in the intervening interval, with the assurance that

the Chancellor will give it, I will not say his favourable, but at any rate his sympathetic, consideration.

Mr. Woodburn: I would like to put a very short point with regard to the post-war credits. My right hon. Friend, in answer to a question recently, agreed in regard to the post-war credits which were now being allocated to workers' accounts that after the war these would be regarded as savings so far as the Determination of Needs Act was concerned. He said it would be necessary to consider how this was to be achieved, whether by regulation or by some Amendment to the Finance Bill. I would like to ask him today whether he has made any decision in regard to that, and when this is likely to be made part of the law or part of the regulations, because it still causes a little bit of concern, and a great many workers are still, I am sorry to say, a little sceptical about the post-war credits scheme. It would do something to confirm the reliability of the promises made with regard to this if it was made clear that this had been achieved in regard to the post-war credits. I hope that he will be able to give some information to-day as to when and how he proposes to achieve that.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: There are just three points I want to raise. I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor to another aspect of the post-war credits. It is felt by a number of elderly people in this country that they may not survive long enough to draw their post-war credits. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should apply some sort of means test in relation to those people; and if he finds people who are very hard pressed for money, and who have no great faith that they will survive to draw post-war credits, he might give special consideration to the question of providing relief for them. The second point relates to income and Income Tax, so far as it affects civil servants. The question of civil servants' income was touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). My attention has been drawn to the fact that there are a number of lower-grade civil servants such as messengers, doorkeepers and others of that category, of over 60, who before the war were put on a salary basis which was intended to induce early retirement. Their salaries were reduced year


by year to encourage them to retire. A number of them have been brought back into the Service, and the same principal still applies. It is true that they get the war bonus, but so do those who are under 60. It is a matter of considerable grievance to many of these people that they are coming back to do war work, the same work as is done by others who are under 60, and that they receive a lower income than the others do.
The third point is that in the whole of this discussion two extreme points of view have been put forward. There has been the point of view of the artisan, the working man, particularly in relation to the payment of income as he earns. On the other hand, there has been the point of view of big business. There is in this country a very large middle class, to whom some relief should be given. The members of that middle class get none of the advantages of free education, free medical attention, and those benefits which go to the lower income classes. I have no sympathy with the big business section, which I am sure is able to look after itself, but I would ask for some further relief to be given to the large body of middle-class people. The small professional men, the shopkeepers, and people of that kind are the people upon whom the heaviest burden has fallen. They have not benefited to the same extent as other classes have from the general prosperity. They still have to pay heavy school fees and heavy medical expenses. I hope that the Chancellor on future occasions will bear them in mind. Their broad backs have borne the burdens of the present situation very well so far, but some of them, with many children to provide for, are finding things very difficult, and I hope that the Chancellor will see his way to afford them some relief.

Mr. Price: I want to refer to another aspect of the question of Income Tax, particularly with regard to workers' wages. This tax is becoming, one might almost say, the sheet anchor of our finance. The Chancellor has raised from it over £1,000,000,000 this year, and he will raise more. He told us that £300,000,000 has gone to post-war tax credits, all of which will give the wage earners of this country a very important stake in this country. That is not a bad thing, because it tends towards stability. I am sure that the workers as a whole accept their responsibility and are glad to

make their contribution to the financial stability of the State, but there is considerable feeling about the method of collection. The Chancellor referred to this subject in his Budget speech, and I will refer to it again, if you will permit me to do so, Sir. What is causing the bitterness is the method of assessing the tax on one year's income and collecting it on the subsequent year's income. That, of course, is a system under which people with higher incomes have suffered. The other day I came across a case of a smallholder, who was working on a large farm, putting in extra work with a farmer at potato pulling, haymaking and harvesting, and the same time making an income from his smallholding. There are thousands of such people up and down the country. Their earnings are uneven. Generally the bulk of the earnings come in the summer and autumn. They are not being taxed then. The Chancellor comes along at the dead time of the year, and calls for a large sum of money. In this case the man got so upset that he decided not to work any more on the large farm, but to devote all his time to the smallholding. Perhaps it will be said that for him to spend more time on his holding will be just as good in the national interest, but I think that this matter could be handled satisfactorily if the Chancellor would only look into it. He has said that his mind is open.
I do not see why there should not be a fixed deduction made while the man earns. Then, if on a later calculation it is found that too much has been taken, the excess can be refunded; and if not enough has been taken, the worker can then be called upon to pay more. It has been objected that this will mean more work for the Chancellor's officials. I know that everybody is overworked, but I cannot see that this will cause any greater difficulty, because in any case the various allowances have to be settled. Therefore I do not see how the matter that I am suggesting would throw any greater burden upon the shoulders of his officials. I hope that he will continue to keep his mind open and that between now and the next Budget he will really get some scheme going that will deal with this matter. It will be easier to collect the tax in the long run and not lead to such feeling as there is in the country if something on the lines that I suggest is done.

Sir K. Wood: I do not want to cut short the Debate, but I have to leave for a short time on a matter which I cannot very well avoid, and the Financial Secretary will reply later on. But I would like to make a few observations on the points already put by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and others. He raised the question of the considerable amount of sums in cash and in people's pockets being used in all sorts of ways and asked me whether I was satisfied that everything was being done as regards Income Tax to see that the State was getting its fair proportion and share. This matter, as I have told the House before, has been under constant examination and attention by my advisors and myself. We are doing everything we can to protect the interests of the Revenue. I cannot say that I am happy or satisfied with the position. There are people about who undoubtedly are paying all their transactions in notes of large dimensions, and we are considering whether any further steps can be taken, as to which I may possibly have to make a statement to the House very soon. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are not unmindful of the situation, and we are doing what we can to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer who pays properly and honestly and to the full extent.
I also note what has again been said on the question of the deduction of tax from wages. I am seized of the position. I went to a lot of trouble last year in circulating a White Paper in order to reassure the House that the matter had had very careful examination indeed. I would invite anyone who thinks that the matter is easy again to peruse that White Paper, which was drafted and drawn up with great care and showed an appreciation of many of the arguments that have been put forward to-day. The House should be warned of the experience—not that I can speak of it to the full—of other countries of this pay-as-you-earn idea. In the last few weeks in America there has been considerable division of opinion in this matter, and the actual scheme which was brought before Congress was defeated after a good deal of discussion and argument. I also indicated to the Committee on the Budget Resolution itself the sort of proposals put forward in Canada, which involve the supply of returns twice a year by the wage-earners and the assessment

of tax to a very large extent by the employers, which are matters that I must carefully study before I commit myself in respect of this country. Throughout I have been acting in consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation. But having said all that, I do not want the House to think that I am lightly setting the matter on one side. I appreciate the anxieties and feelings of a good many of the wage-earners, and I can understand their feeling of apprehension as to the future. I again assure the House that the Board of Inland Revenue are now looking into this matter again and are aware of the desires of the House, and that if there is any possibility of some sort of solution, they are the expert body to provide such a scheme. I have had several conversations with them on the matter.
As far as civil servants are concerned, which matter was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, arrangements, I understand, are being made for payments to be spread over a number of years. If my right hon. Friend will let me have any case where that method is not being applied, I shall be very glad to take it up. I noticed what he said about cripples. I went a long way to meet him that time, and I will in the interim period ponder over any further proposals he brings to me. If he and I are still going going on, I wonder what else he will bring forward when that has been successfully accomplished, if at all.
The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) raised again the question of post-war credits. He will remember that I have already made a definite announcement in the House that post-war credits will be regarded as war savings for the purposes of the Determination of Needs Act, and I do not think that there is any further doubt about the reality of this assurance. The issue of the certificates has done a great deal in that connection. I have also on a previous occasion explained to my hon. Friend that the precise legal form in which effect will be given to this position will have to be decided when the time comes, but I will bear his point in mind, and if I see an opportunity of making the position still more clear, I shall be very glad to do so. I would say in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton


(Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) that I cannot begin to anticipate the payment of these post-war credits. Directly I begin to break into that condition I am getting into a very great difficulty. Anyone who knows what happened in America in the last war, when payments were made through people being allowed to anticipate sums of this kind, will know that it is not always of benefit and that while you may be meeting one particular case of difficulty, you may bring a lot of harm to other people. I think it is the wisest thing for me to maintain the present position with regard to the payment of post-war credits.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton also raised the question of remuneration of civil servants brought back into the service, and I will examine that matter and communicate with him. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend and with my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) in many of the observations they have made. I appreciate the heaviness of the burden on the middle section of the community. I hope that many of the proposals we are making, to which I do not think they gave due credit, should go to the advantage of the middle section of the community. While I can understand their position, I must not be unmindful that our stabilisation policy has been of considerable advantage to that particular section. I have wanted to make these observations, not by way of interfering with the Debate, but because I want to say to my hon. Friends who have raised various points that I will carefully examine them and will have regard to what is said in this Debate.

Mr. Benson: I think we shall all agree that if it were possible to introduce a scheme of pay-as-you-go, it would be ideal, but so far no one has suggested any such scheme that would be really practicable. I think the whole question is tending to become somewhat of a fetish. The objection to the system of assessment on one year's income and payment out of the next rests largely on the assumption that the two incomes will vary very considerably. There was great difficulty in the early years of the war when incomes were changing, when incomes in the summer were a great deal higher than in the winter, When the incidence of the tax collected varied considerably from

period to period there was hardship. An ad hoc attempt was made by the Chancellor to adjust the periods, make allowances and set limitations so that the incidence of collection should be as equal as possible throughout the year. I do not know whether it is too early yet for the Financial Secretary to say, but perhaps he can tell us how far the Chancellor has succeeded in making the incidence of collection more or less equal throughout equal periods. If he can, I think it will show how far the Chancellor has been successful in removing the major objection of assessment one year and collection the next.
If you have a stabilised income—and I think incomes are tending to become more stabilised—it does not matter very much if you are paying on last year's assessment out of this year's income, because the two are the same. If you make the adjustment the Chancellor has made and you get in effect this payment of assessment out of equal income, there is little or no objection. If the Chancellor has achieved that, I think the case for the pay-as-you-go system—which would be extremely difficult to evolve—largely falls to the ground. One objection often raised to the present system is that when working life ends, when a man finally ceases employment, he will still be owing a year's tax. It may well be that the Chancellor, in order to maintain his present method of collection, will have to face up frankly to the fact that the final year's tax may not be collected. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that there is no system of pay-as-you-go which can be instituted which does not mean that the Chancellor will have to forgo one complete year's tax. The institution of a pay-as-you-go scheme means that the Chancellor on weekly incomes definitely surrenders the right to last year's tax. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, last year's tax is payable out of this year's income under the present law. If you are also to make this year's income taxable in this year, either you have two years' tax payable in the one year—that is, last year's tax and this year's tax as well—or you have to wipe out last year's tax. That is perfectly clear. There is no other way out.

Mr. Messer: Is it not possible to take last year's tax by weekly payments out of present income?

Mr. Benson: That is exactly what you are doing now. Last year's tax is being collected by weekly payments out of this year's income. If you say we will institute a system by which this year's tax is based on this year's income, you have to pay last year's tax and this year's tax out of one income. That is impracticable, and one year's tax must be remitted. But if the Chancellor is to forgo one year's tax, it does not matter to the Chancellor whether it is last year's or some future year's tax. In any case, he will definitely lose one year's tax.

Mr. Woodburn: It may mean that he would lose the difference, if there was a difference, between this year's tax and what it would have been if it was taxed on last year. Eventually, maybe, he will lose one year's tax.

Mr. Benson: That is true so far as the practical effect is concerned. As the Chancellor is bound to lose one year's tax, it does not really matter which, and those critics who argue against the present system, that the Chancellor will ultimately have to forgo large amounts of tax when the earning capacity of the workers is lessened, are using an argument which may be theoretically valid but which is cancelled out by the fact that the system they advocate must produce an identical loss. The real problem is: Has the Chancellor succeeded in equalising the incidence of the collection of earnings and have earnings stabilised themselves sufficiently to remove any hardship which assessment in one year and payment the next makes? If the Financial Secretary can give us any information on that point, I shall be glad.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and I know he will forgive me, because I am not an expert on how Income Tax is collected nor the various Income Tax systems, but, speaking as an old grocer, and one who has had considerable experience in making returns as to profits and transactions, I feel it is my duty to ask the Chancellor to consider the changed systems that are obtaining in the wholesale fruit and vegetable markets, which have led to the wholesale evasion of taxation. It is two years since I began to inquire into this matter. I am astonished at what has happened, and I am wondering whether

the Treasury inspectors have reported on the widespread changes that have become operative, particularly in recent months.
Let me give the House a simple illustration. In the North of England we in the retail trade have always recognised that in the purchase of any commodity that involves payment of £2or over the payment should be by cheque. Consequently, we always had a record which was open to inspection by an inspector or auditor or any person who cares to make an inquiry. That was a system which I always understood and was a code of honesty which was generally accepted throughout the trade, certainly by, grocers. I always thought the same thing applied to the wholesale market generally, but I find that I was a mere innocent lad. After what has happened in recent months in the fruit and vegetable market, I recommend to the Chancellor that he should take into account the representations which have been made by certain Members in all parts of the House that all big transactions should be paid for, and recorded by, cheque.
Let me give a simple illustration. I am satisfied that at most fruit and vegetable markets at the present time there are transactions involving hundreds of pounds a day, thousands of pounds a week, and possibly tens of thousands of pounds a year, in which no receipts are given. There are cash payments for all goods sold. When I am told that this Resolution affects individuals whose total income exceeds £1,500 a year, I wonder what check the Chancellor can possibly have on these people who have deliberately changed their method of bookkeeping by keeping no books at all. They are deliberately evading taxation. The average weekly wage earner cannot evade anything; he has got to pay and cannot cheat in any way. Cheating on a wholesale scale runs right through the markets of this country. There are many reputable firms which have continued with their codes, and their business methods would bear examination by anybody; but there are scores of firms which have deliberately designed their business methods to evade taxation. For instance, a small greengrocer goes to the fruit and vegetable market to purchase £50 worth of greengroceries. He has his pockets packed with £1 notes. He goes to the market and makes his purchases, but he cannot show any receipts because he has not got any.
I would emphasise that this is not the black market. It is the ordinary legitimate wholesale fruit and vegetable market. It is the common practice. I am not an expert in devising ways and means of trapping cheats, but I suggest that a simple method could be adopted to put a stop to this practice. Could not the Chancellor bring in a small Measure providing that all transactions in the wholesale markets shall be made under an official receipt, no matter how small those transactions may be? That ought to be some kind of regulation which imposes upon the wholesaler, the buyer and the seller, the keeping of a record one way or the other, or in both ways. I ask the Chancellor to make a careful investigation of this problem. I ask him to make investigations in the markets. If he does this I feel sure he will be astonished by what he finds and astonished by the results that will accrue to the Treasury if only he can force all the cheats into the net and make them play the game by the Treasury and the nation.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I wish to refer to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), who shook the faith of some of us who advocate the pay-as-you-go system, if it can be made workable. I think the majority of opinion in the House and in the country is in favour of that system if we can get the machinery to work it The hon. Member made a very strong point when he said that in any case the Treasury was going to lose a year's revenue in this matter, but is that really so? I have not noticed at the Treasury an atmosphere of benevolence. When a person comes to the end of his working life, or when he is confronted with a heavy assessment on a good year followed by a year in which he is floundering, what happens is that the Treasury officials are helpful and allow the back payments to be made over a period. I want to ask the hon. Member for Chesterfield whether, even if he is right in his statement—I do not think he is, but there may be cases in which he is right—the argument is not in favour of a transition now to a pay-as-you-go system.

Mr. Benson: It depends from what point of view the hon. Gentleman is asking the question. If there is a transition now to the pay-as-you-go system, the Treasury must necessarily give up a year's revenue.

It cannot hold over to 1950 or 1960 a tax which was assessable in 1942. If there is no change in method, the Treasury does not in any way surrender its right; it only becomes impracticable to collect when an individual no longer earns.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The hon. Member has anticipated the point I was about to make. I suggest it is not impracticable to make the transition and to keep the revenue. I think that if the matter is put fairly to the country, there will be no objection at this moment, when wage standards are good, to collecting the back revenue. I think the country would appreciate the point. The difficulty of many wage earners, who are now paying Income Tax for the first time, will not come at the end of their working life. The difficulty will come at the conclusion of hostilities We cannot foresee what will be the circumstances then, but it may be that a large number of factories on war production will have to close down for some months in order that the plant may be switched over to peace-time activities. It may be that at the end of the war, when people are confronted with an Income Tax claim for the last year of hostilities, it will be a frightful burden upon them. They may be unemployed at the time. It is better to face these difficulties now, at a time when employment is good and wage standards high, than to put them off to a time when the post-war situation may be very difficult. I do not think it is beyond the ingenuity of the Treasury to work out this matter. If is not a new problem. Although it may be a new one to many people, there are many business men who have known years in which their profits were nil and who have been confronted with demands for both Income Tax and Surtax on the previous year's profits, which were good. I would also remind the House that at the beginning of the war many men who were conscripted into the ranks had Income Tax demands made upon them for the year 1938–39, which was a prosperous year in which their incomes may have been £700 or £800, or even have reached four figures. In the interests of the whole community, employers and wage earners, it would be better to face the problem now, and even if it meant a few anomalies, to make an alteration in the machinery now.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The Chancellor of the


Exchequer has, I think, answered nearly all the points that have been raised, but I should like to say a word with regard to that just mentioned by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden). It was raised earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that he was keeping a most careful eye on this question of the possibility of evading tax by cash payments. But I will draw his attention to what the hon. Member said, and, if there is anything further that can be done, done it must be. I hope, however, that the House will not form the impression that the taxpayers as a body are trying to evade their taxes. I think on the whole the Income Tax paying community are making a very gallant effort to pay their taxes and to pay them to time. It is interesting to observe that it is not 100 years ago since John Stuart Mill said that Income Tax was an impossible tax because people were so dishonest they would never make a true return of their income. We have had Income Tax for a good many years, and I do not think the standard of honesty can be said to be falling.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) raised two points. One was the question of pay-as-you-go. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has to some extent answered his point. The Chancellor has already said that the Board of Inland Revenue is now engaged in examining the matter afresh. I think it would be inappropriate if I attempted to discuss the matter in detail or debate the points that have been raised. Particularly can I assure the House that the question of the possible loss of a year's, or part of a year's, revenue is not one of those questions that will be overlooked either by the Inland Revenue or by the Treasury or by the Chancellor himself. The hon. and gallant Member asked how far the reforms that have been introduced in administering this tax have improved the position. I am glad to say that it has undoubtedly improved and that the arrangements made by the Board of Inland Revenue have gone a long way to meet the difficulty. But there are some that cannot be met in that way, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

Holderness drew attention to examples of them which occur, when a man who has been earning a substantial income, for instance, goes into the Army and draws a small amount of pay. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is looking into the whole matter again. He is anxious to see if some way can be found of meeting these real difficulties, and, if a way can be found which is not open to any serious objection, he will no doubt communicate it to the House.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Thirteenth Resolution agreed to.

SETTLEMENTS AND DISPOSITIONS

Fourteenth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Benson: May we have an explanation of this?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): There are certain Sections of the Finance Acts, 1922, 1936 and 1938 which were designed to prevent tax-evading schemes involving settlements from producing the tax results which their devisers intended. I think it is quite clear from the Sections that they are applicable, and were certainly intended to be applicable, in cases where there was more than one settlor, that is to say, that Parliament never intended that you could, as it were, get round the clear intention of the Section by getting a friend to collaborate and having in fact two settlements in one document. In a recent case which came before the Courts, and which of course will not in any way be disturbed by this declaratory legislation, the point was suggested, though it was not the point that decided in the case that there might be difficulties in applying some of the provisions of this Section to cases where there were two settlors and that they were not quite clear as to how you applied them. My right hon. Friend, therefore, proposes to put forward in the Finance Bill a declaratory Clause laying down that these Sections in the earlier Acts do apply, and always have applied, to cases where there was more than one settlor, and it is also intended to set out in some detail how they


apply when there is more than one settlor.
As far as that part of the Clause is concerned, it will be designed to make it clear that you do not, as it were, tax the same income twice over. That is to say, if you have two settlors, each will only be concerned with that part of the property in the settlement, and the income from it, which is attributable to him. That, plainly, is the fair way of dealing with it, and I think would have been the result, perhaps must have been the result, of any litigation on the point assuming that the Crown had tried to put forward any other view, but it is desirable that it should be cleared up, and that is the particular nature of the problem with which the Clause will deal.

Mr. Benson: I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that this declaration was felt to be necessary owing to some indecision on the matter in the courts.

The Attorney-General: In the course of an argument in a case, though it was not the point that was decided, it was suggested that some of these provisions might not apply if there was more than one settlor. The practice has always been to the contrary, but doubt emerged in the course of the argument, and that is why the Clause is put forward.

Mr. Benson: The point that interests me is rather this, that when one gets legislation dealing with tax avoidance, it is generally the outcome of the experience of the Board of Inland Revenue, an experience perhaps two, three or four years old when eventually it reaches the House. When I saw more tax-avoidance legislation down, I wondered how far it was based on experience of actual avoidance before or during the period of the war. It is pure curiosity on my part, but I was wondering how far the effect of the war had nullified the savage increase in Surtax and how far Surtax payers were now, in the stress of war, bearing that tax with less wriggling than before the war.

The Attorney-General: That raises a very general issue, while this is a very minor point. The Inland Revenue always assumed that these provisions covered cases where there was more than one settlor, but doubt was suggested in argument, and, on looking at it we thought it

desirable to clear the matter up by a declaratory Clause.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Fifteenth Resolution agreed to.

ESTATE DUTY

Sixteenth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Benson: May we have an explanation of this Resolution?

The Attorney-General: The Finance Act of, I think, 1938 dealt with a rather complicated system of Estate Duty evasion under which the normal incidence of that duty, when a policy of insurance is taken out for the benefit of widow or children, was avoided. The House will see that it was a somewhat artificial and complicated structure when I tell them that it involved a payment by way of gift or settlement of £100,000 to trustees, who then took up shares in a one man company and simultaneously, or about the same time, £90,000 was lent back to the man who had transferred it. In that Section there was an exception which was intended to see that it did not apply to what I may call bona fide transactions where money was parted or property was parted with for full consideration for money or money's worth. It has occurred to some ingenious person that an Estate Duty avoidance scheme of this kind can be brought within the exception by making the payment of the notional £100,000 to the company for shares, the shares then being settled instead of the original £100,000. That clearly, if it was allowed to operate, defeated the intention of the House in that Section. We do not desire, of course, to attack or to bring within the Section bona fide transactions which are perfectly proper, but we have evidence that it has occurred to somebody that use can be made of this exception for transactions for full consideration to preserve the tax avoidance structure of the scheme. It is a complicated matter which will be easier to understand to those who are industrious enough to understand it when the Clause is before the House.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

NATIONAL DEBT (PERMANENT ANNUAL CHARGE)

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to authorise

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sum of three hundred and seventy-five million pounds for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year, instead of the sum of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds;
(b) the provision out of money borrowed for the purpose under the National Loans Act, 1939, instead of out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt, of the sums required for the current financial year for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1928, as amended by any subsequent enactment.

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [14th April]

AMENDMENT OF LAW

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Assheton.

FINANCE BILL,

"to grant certain Duties, to alter other Duties and to amend the law relating to the Public Revenue and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with finance"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," (Mr. Allan Chapman) put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendments to page 9, line 24, agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Amendment of Corn Returns Act, 1882.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 15, line 43, at the end, insert:
(2) This Section shall not come into operation until the first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-three.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege, and a Special Entry will be made.
Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 16, line 24, agreed to.

CLAUSE 19. (Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 16, line 35, at the end, insert:
(i) in Sub-section (1) the proviso were omitted;
(ii) for Sub-section (2) the following Subsection were substituted—

'(2) Where any directions under Defence Regulations have been given to the tenant of an agricultural holding affecting during the last twelve months of the tenancy the cultivation, management, or use of the holding, the tenant shall on the termination of his tenancy be entitled in respect of any tillages or manuring carried out for the purpose of complying with the directions otherwise than in accordance with the lease or the custom of the country or to an extent exceeding that provided by the lease or custom to such sum by way of compensation as fairly represents the value thereof or, as the case may be, of the excess part thereof to an incoming tenant; and any growing crops sown, as a result of compliance with directions given under Defence Regulations, otherwise than in accordance with the lease or the custom of the country or to an extent exceeding that provided by the lease or custom shall pass to and become the property of the landlord, and the landlord shall pay to the tenant in respect thereof such compensation for the tenant's services and expenses in laying down the crop or, as the the case may be, the excess part thereof, as may be determined by arbitration'."

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is for the purpose of applying Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 15 to Scotland and is designed to bring them into harmony with the law and practice in Scotland. As Sub-sections (1) and (2) stand at present they cannot be successfully operated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

WAR DAMAGE (HIGHWAYS SCHEME)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I beg to move,
That the Order, dated 25th March, 1943, embodying the War Damage (Highways) Scheme, 1943, made by the Treasury under Section 41 of the War Damage Act, 1941, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th March, be approved.
The House may remember that when the War Damage Act was being considered it was realised that neither the payments nor the contributions scheme of the Act could be applied to highways. Section 41 of the Act of 1941 laid down the outlines of the special arrangements to be made with regard to highways and they left the details to be filled in by a scheme to be made by the Treasury. This is the scheme which we now have before us. It has been prepared after consultation with the various associations of local authorities concerned.
I should like to take the opportunity of thanking those associations for the help they have given to us at the Treasury in framing this scheme, and I have every reason to believe that the scheme as it has emerged is acceptable to them. I hope very much that the House will think that it provides a fair settlement of a rather difficult problem. The payments structure, which is covered in the first part of this scheme, is quite simple in principle. The highway authority is paid the cost of restoring the highway to the state in which it was before it was damaged. On the contributions side, it is laid down in Section 41 of the original Act that these contributions are to be paid by county councils and county boroughs.
The only important point which is left open in the Act is how the total contributions are to be shared between individual councils. This point has been the subject of long discussion and consideration, and the conclusion has been reached that the only basis which is fair and practicable is that the shares of the individual county councils and county borough councils shall be in proportion to the rateable value of the property in their areas. All sorts of other plans were considered, but after full discussion the conclusion was come to that that was the only plan which was fair and equitable. I think the House will recognise that the ratepayers are being treated very fairly, and for two reasons. In the

first place, their contributions will attract a 50 per cent. grant from the Road Fund, and, secondly, the cost of repairing the war damage to highways in London, which is no inconsiderable amount, will be left out of the account. The reason for that is that in the early days of the blitz there was no War Damage Act in existence, because it had not been passed by this House, and the highway authorities had not any very clear prospect of help from the taxpayer towards the repair of their highways. At that time London, as hon. Members will recollect, was the principal target of the attack, and the Government made special arrangements at that time for dealing with the effects of the blitz in London, including amongs other things war damage to the highways in the London Civil Defence Area. The Government met the whole cost of this scheme without any contribution from the rates, and when the general war damage scheme, on the contributory basis was introduced, these special arrangements in London were continued.
The effect is that the highway authorities in London will be paid just the same as if the scheme now before the House applied to them. The cost of dealing with war damaged highways in London will be left out of account in arriving at the highway contributions of ratepayers throughout the country generally. Therefore, as the House will appreciate, the benefit of the scheme in London, instead of being concentrated and confined to London alone, will be spread over the whole country. I think that is clear, and I think the House will agree that that is the right way to approach the question, and that it is right that the country as a whole should have the advantage of this arrangement. Although the scheme may look a little complicated on the face of it, I think the House will agree that it is really not such a complicated scheme, and I therefore ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Gallacher: When consideration is given to the payment of compensation for property that is lost, is any consideration ever given to the payment of compensation for a livelihood which is lost, or is property of more concern than the livelihood of a worker? Just tell us that.

Sir Harold Webbe: I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), even if it were fitting for me to attempt to do so. I rise only to express


the hope that the House will accept this Motion, because I am sure that in general the scheme which is now before us for approval will be welcomed by the local authorities. The Treasury have fully discharged the obligation which was placed upon them to consult the local authorities in framing this scheme, and I think that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and his advisers have earned the gratitude both of the local authorities and of this House for producing a scheme which provides a fair, reasonable and workable solution of a difficult and quite complicated problem. My own personal enthusiasm for the scheme is somewhat tempered by the fact that the London County Council, of which I have the honour to be a member, and other local authorities in the London region appear to come into this scheme only on the contribution side. They are obliged under the scheme to make certain contributions but they are not entitled to receive payments.

Mr. Kirkwood: I thought there was a snag.

Sir H. Webbe: The hon. Member must not suspect the Treasury of any evil intention. Those authorities are at the moment receiving payments under the Warren Fisher Agreement. I admit that I am a little puzzled by what the Financial Secretary said about that Agreement in relation to this scheme. I had the impression that this scheme aggregated the damage over the whole country and aggregated over the whole country the contributions to be made by the local authorities towards the cost of this damage, and then apportioned that total contribution among the various authorities. I had not realised that the cost of war damage in London is to be met 100 per cent. by the State and not taken into account in arriving at the global figure of contributions towards which London must pay its share. Certainly the Warren Fisher Agreement as it now stands appears to me to be less favourable to the London authorities than is the arrangement in the present scheme, because it is limited to the cost of restoring highways to a usable condition, whereas under this scheme, the Government will pay the cost of restoring highways to their pre-war condition, with the full pre-war surface, and so on. In that respect it seems to me that the Warren Fisher scheme is not as favour-

able to local authorities as this one, but I am reassured by what my hon. Friend has said, that the intention of the Government is to place the London authorities on exactly the same footing, ultimately, as the other authorities of the country, and I gladly accept that assurance.
There is one other point in regard to the Warren Fisher scheme which I think I ought to raise in this connection. In the scheme before us, there is derived from the main Act a definite obligation on the Government to make highway payments, just as there is a definite obligation on the authorities to pay contributions. Under the Warren Fisher scheme, there is no legal obligation on the Government to make any payments whatever. I cannot see how there could be, or whence the Regional Commissioner, as such, could derive the power to impose such a legal obligation on the Treasury. I hope that, when the arrangements are made to bring London into line with the rest of the country, this point will be borne in mind. I am not greatly disturbed by it myself, because I have discerned no intention on the part of the Treasury to "bilk" the local authorities, but some of the more nervous local authorities would like to be satisfied that just as there is a legal obligation on them to pay contributions, so there is a legal obligation on the Government to make highway payments.
Damage to the highway almost invariably involves damage to one or more of the underground services—sewage, gas, water, electricity or telephone—which run beneath the highways. In the time of the blitz in London, it not infrequently happened that because of the urgency of restoring those services, the public utility organisations and others had to effect temporary repairs to give emergency services. I would like to pay my tribute to the magnificent work not only of the General Post Office but of the public utility companies in that direction, in conditions of extreme difficulty and serious shortage of labour, particularly of skilled labour. Those temporary services are well below the peace-time services, both in character and in extent. Many of them have been covered by roads, which have been rebuilt over them and completely surfaced. The highway has been completely finished, but it must happen that, sooner or later, perhaps in a year or two


when the roadways are fully in use and the properties abutting on them are fully occupied, those temporary services will have to be replaced by permanent services suitable to carry the full load, and the replacement of those temporary services must involve further breaking up of the roads and further road works. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give me an assurance that in any scheme which he brings forward in the future to deal with damage to public utility property, he will make sure that this point is covered, and that no consequential expense can fall on the local authorities as a result of that work.
In regard to contributions, the Minister has explained the basis of the contributions and the basis of the apportionment which has been decided. He described it as the only arrangement which was fair and workable. I agree. It may well be the only arrangement which is practicable, but I feel bound to point out that to make the apportionment on the basis of the 1939 rateable value must lead to fairly serious inequalities. It is well-known that the basis of assessment varies very widely from one authority to another in this country. Indeed, the natural and obvious difficulty in arriving at anything like uniformity of the system is actually aggravated by the fact that many local authorities adopt a deliberate policy in regard to the basis of assessment. Some prefer definitely to have low assessments with righ rates, and others to have high assessment with low rates. There is no doubt whatever that it does lead to very serious variation in standards of assessment between one authority and another. Therefore, an apportionment based on those rateable values may well prove seriously inequitable.
I admit the difficulty and the need to correct it, but I would ask my hon. Friend whether the Treasury have considered trying to measure the extent of this inequality, by perhaps comparing the rates in the pound levied by different authorities to provide some service which reaches a reasonably uniform standard throughout the country. One example which occurs to me is the cost of elementary education, after deducting teachers' salaries, which are, of course, determined by the Burn-ham scale. Examination of those figures might give some indication of variation in the standards of assessment which would

affect the rate of contribution. If my hon. Friend can find some way of ironing out those inequalities, either by weighting the rateable value which is to be used under this scheme, or by making some provision under the grant-in-aid, he will earn the gratitude of a great many local authorities. I know it is an extremely difficult problem to solve, but that must not blind us to the fact that it exists.
That brings me to the question of the grant. I was very pleased to hear the Financial Secretary refer to grants of 50 per cent. although paragraph 13 of the scheme has the delightful vagueness which many such paragraphs have. It speaks of grants and says that the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants up to 50 per cent. of the contribution.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does that provision apply to Scotland as well as to London?

Sir H. Webbe: I think it applies to Scotland quite definitely. It applies to everyone. The point I am making is, that first, there is power to make a grant; secondly, the Minister has to have the approval of the Treasury and thirdly, the grants may be up to 50 per cent.

Mr. Kirkwood: In this Cave of Adullam over here, the rumour is very prevalent that London is to receive 100 per cent. against Clydebank's 50 per cent. Is that the case?

Sir H. Webbe: I can assure the hon. Member that we are not as lucky as that in London, and in any case there are sufficient Scotsmen looking on to make sure that we do not get anything of the kind. The intention is that they shall be given not "up to 50 per cent." but shall be given actually 50 per cent. That fixes one figure. Can the Minister enlighten me on the conditions under which the Treasury will consent to those grants being made? Perhaps I ought to say, rather more optimistically, under what conditions is it likely that the Treasury would refuse their approval of such grants? I think the local authorities should have something pretty definite in regard to the grants.
There is one final, small point in connection with the grant. The scheme provides that local authorities pay the contributions in full and then receive grants-in-aid from the Ministry of Transport. It would be a very great administrative


convenience to the authorities, as well as a little solid comfort, if, instead of paying the whole contribution and then doing the best they can with the Ministry of Transport, they were allowed to pay the net contribution, leaving the Treasury to collect the grant from the Ministry of Transport in one lump sum. I understand that the suggestion has been accepted, but there is difficulty in meeting it, arising from Sub-section (5) of Section 41 of the original Act. But if that is a purely legal difficulty, I ask my hon. Friend to see whether there is not some way round in these days which would make the actual transaction very much simpler than it is under the present arrangement. That is all I wish to say by way of comment, and I would end on the note on which I began, by congratulating my hon. Friend on producing a scheme which, even though it may require modification in some detail later on, is certainly well worth trying, and expressing the hope that the House will now give this scheme the blessing it is called upon to do by Statute.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order, dated 25th March, 1943, embodying the War Damage (Highways) Scheme, 1943, made by the Treasury under Section 41 of the War Damage Act, 1941, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th March, be approved.

NURSES BILL

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that a Message has been received from the Lords as follows:
"The Lords agree with the Nurses Bill, with Amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of this House."

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments to the Nurses Bill be taken into consideration forthwith."—[Miss Horsbrugh.]

CLAUSE 8 (Licensing of agencies.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 6, line 37, leave out Sub-section (5), and insert:
(5) An application under this Part of this Act for the grant of a licence in respect of an agency in respect of which a licence is in force at the time of the application shall not be refused and a licence under this Part of this

Act shall not be revoked by a licensing authority unless the holder has been given an opportunity of being heard by the licensing authority or a committee thereof.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes the Sub-section simpler and shorter than the original Subsection and also makes it clear that any holder of a licence who applies for renewal is warned of the case he has to meet if the licence is to be refused, and is able to have a hearing with the licensing authority.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it a good Amendment?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Enforcement.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 7, line 28, at the end, insert:
on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment secures that, as in other Acts, the persons authorised to inspect premises must, when they are carrying out an inspection, produce evidence if called upon that they are in fact duly authorised to carry out that inspection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 10, line 32, at the end, insert new Clause:

(Penalty for false representation that another is a registered or enrolled nurse.)

"Any person who, knowing that some other person is not registered or enrolled, makes any statement or does any act calculated to suggest that that other person is registered or enrolled shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, ten pounds, and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, fifty pounds."

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
An Amendment to do what this Amendment does was brought forward by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey)


when this Bill was being considered in Committee. The wording of his suggestion would not, we thought, carry out what he wanted to do. In this Amendment it is made clear that if a third person suggests that someone who is an untrained person is a nurse he or she also is guilty of an offence. The House will remember that any untrained person who gives the impression or states that he or she is a nurse commits an offence if he or she is not a State enrolled or State registered nurse. If an agency sending out nurses does the same thing, it is committing an offence. This Amendment deals with the case of what might happen in a not reputable nursing home where there may be a person dressed as, and introduced as, a nurse who is not a nurse. Any third person doing that would, under this new Clause, be deemed to have committed an offence.

Mr. Messer: As described by the Parliamentary Secretary, this Amendment sounds very innocuous, but there is a danger. I think the House ought to be made aware of the danger that does exist. What is going to happen is that if a nursing agency sends out a nurse, it must describe that nurse. It must not send out a nurse and leave it to be believed that she does or does not come under some particular category. The agency can send out a State registered nurse, or a State registered tuberculosis nurse, who is on the supplementary register, or a State registered fever nurse, or an enrolled assistant nurse. But there is a nurse who does not come under any of these designations, and if an agency sends out that nurse, what is going to happen if it is believed that she is a State registered nurse? She is the only one entitled to be called "nurse" without some prefix.
The House will perhaps remember that in the Debate I tried to get the Minister to agree to the opening of the register to those nurses who had all the qualifications but were not on the register because at the time the original Act was introduced for some reason they were unable to comply with the demand and have their names put on. Some of them were out of the country at the time of the Act of 1919, and the last date upon which they could have their names put on the register was 1925. As recently as this morning I have had a letter from a nurse who is holding a fairly responsible position,

who was married and was widowed three weeks after the date in 1925 when she could have been placed on the register. She is not a State registered nurse. She has got her school certificate, a splendid training school, and has all the qualifications that would be held by a State registered nurse. If she is sent out to an agency and it is believed that by some means she has been described as a State registered nurse, an offence will be committed. I am speaking in this way because I still want to urge the Ministry to get over the barrier that is presented by the General Nursing Council and give a large number of nurses that which I believe to be their due—the right of registration.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think I should perhaps make it clearer what this Clause actually does. It says that a person will commit an offence if he knowingly makes any statement that someone who is not a registered or enrolled nurse is a registered or enrolled nurse. That is what the Amendment does. Therefore the nurse to whom the hon. Member has referred would not come within this at all, so that this particular Amendment will not touch that point which I know the hon. Member is interested in, and which, as stated before, might be looked into when we come to the subject of regulations. This Amendment only applies on a question of fact.

Sir Robert Tasker: As I understand it, this does not cover the whole nursing profession. I want to know whether the woman who is a dental nurse and is described as such will be affected by this Bill or not. The individuals in question are described as dental nurses, and they have no desire to be described as anything else. Will they be affected by using the word "nurse"?

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps I might reply to that point if I am in Order. That has nothing to do with this Amendment. We discussed that point when we were discussing the Bill.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]